Skip to content

APPSEC-60188: downgrade integration response parsing log to debug #959

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
RomainMuller merged 3 commits into from
Dec 15, 2025
Merged

APPSEC-60188: downgrade integration response parsing log to debug #959

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
3a9fdf3
fix(aap): downgrade integration response parsing log to debug
RomainMuller Dec 9, 2025
03d25e1
Merge branch 'main' into romain.marcadier/log-to-debug
RomainMuller Dec 10, 2025
1ffcc61
Merge branch 'main' into romain.marcadier/log-to-debug
RomainMuller Dec 11, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions bottlecap/src/appsec/processor/mod.rs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ use libdd_trace_protobuf::pb::Span;
use libddwaf::object::{WafMap, WafOwned};
use libddwaf::{Builder, Config as WafConfig, Handle};
use tokio::sync::Mutex;
use tracing::{debug, info, warn};
use tracing::{debug, info};

use crate::appsec::processor::context::Context;
use crate::appsec::processor::response::ExpectedResponseFormat;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ impl Processor {
ctx.run(payload.as_ref());
}
Ok(None) => debug!("aap: no response payload available"),
Err(e) => warn!("aap: failed to parse invocation result payload: {e}"),
Err(e) => debug!("aap: failed to parse invocation result payload: {e}"),
Copy link
Contributor

@jchrostek-dd jchrostek-dd Dec 10, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this a noisy log message for customers? Shouldn't this not be happening in most cases?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@RomainMuller RomainMuller Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Basically, if this happens on a given Lambda function, then it is likely to happen for all invocations, as what we are parsing is the "core" structure of the API GW "Lambda Proxy" response... which is likely to be structured identically for all responses.

Ideally, we would produce telemetry logs for these conditions, so that we can be made aware of these issues (as you said, it should not happen unless we have a bug -- as was the case here and it's been fixed via #960) without causing a logs surcharge to the customer.

}

let (method, route, status_code) = ctx.endpoint_info();
Expand Down
Loading