graphqlIntegration: updating Sentry config removes responseHook from otel config

[ldiqual]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have checked for existing issues https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/issues
• I have reviewed the documentation https://docs.sentry.io/
• I am using the latest SDK release https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-javascript/releases

How do you use Sentry?

Sentry Saas (sentry.io)

Which SDK are you using?

@sentry/node

SDK Version

9.11.0

Framework Version

No response

Link to Sentry event

No response

Reproduction Example/SDK Setup

Important: I'm using late initialization using the ESM preload, which explains why setConfig is called twice.

Sentry.init({
  // ...
  integrations: [
    Sentry.graphqlIntegration({
      mergeItems: true, // Passed to otel, not defined in Sentry types
      ignoreResolveSpans: false,
      useOperationNameForRootSpan: true,
    }),
  ],
})

Steps to Reproduce

I added the following log line in otel's graphql instrumentation @opentelemetry/instrumentation-graphql/build/src/instrumentation.js:

setConfig(config = {}) {
  super.setConfig(Object.assign(Object.assign({}, DEFAULT_CONFIG), config));
  console.log('>>>setConfig done', this.getConfig())
}

First init (during esm preload) logs:

>>>setConfig done {
  enabled: true,
  mergeItems: false,
  depth: -1,
  allowValues: false,
  ignoreResolveSpans: true,
  ignoreTrivialResolveSpans: true,
  useOperationNameForRootSpan: true,
  responseHook: [Function: responseHook]
}

Second init (during late Sentry initialization):

>>>setConfig done {
  enabled: true,
  mergeItems: true,
  depth: -1,
  allowValues: false,
  ignoreResolveSpans: false,
  ignoreTrivialResolveSpans: true,
  useOperationNameForRootSpan: true
  // Note the missing hook
}

Expected Result

I would expect sentry to pass the requestHook again to setConfig so that useOperationNameForRootSpan can be applied.

Actual Result

responseHook is not passed

[lforst]

@mydea do we have a way around this?

[mydea]

yeah, we need to rewrite this integration to do the option parsing separately 🤔 let me take a look…

[github-actions]

A PR closing this issue has just been released 🚀

This issue was referenced by PR #16016, which was included in the 9.13.0 release.