Not a customer? Click the 'Start a free trial' link to begin a 30-day SaaS trial of our product and to join our community.
Existing Cisco AppDynamics customers should click the 'Sign In' button to authenticate to access the community
11-26-2018 03:25 AM - edited 11-26-2018 03:28 AM
Hi,
I've instrumented a POJO rule as:
Match classes "that extend a Super Class that ends with BaseCatalogWorkflowStep" (didn't want to bother with the package prefix, so used ends with, instead of equals)
Method name "equals in"
We have been capturing BTs correctly for all subclasses of BaseCatalogWorkflowStep which override the in() method.
However, for any subclasses where the in() method is not overridden, the BTs aren't captured.
Our application is rather complex, in the sense that we're using IBM proprietary code, that is invoked when certain events are triggered by users. One such event is the in() method of the BaseCatalogWorkflowStep class. Any subclasses which extend the BaseCatalogWorkflowStep class but do not override the in() method, still have the in() method invoked on them, but the code executed is the one from the parent class.
Is there any way, besides ovderriding the in() method and just calling super.in(), that we can capture BTs in this scenario?
I've attached screenshots of the POJO rule, of a class definition that is captured and of a class definition that is not captured.
POJO rule
Class definition which is NOT captured
Class definition which is captured
11-27-2018 08:36 PM - edited 11-27-2018 08:36 PM
Hi @Radu.Pana
A colleague of mine suggested that you might succeed if you use the “class equals” rule instead of extends.
Let us know if the suggestion works for you.
11-29-2018 07:35 AM
Hi Radhika,
Thanks for your answer.
I've tried your suggestion, but transactions were still not being detected.
In the end, I've succeeded in capturing the transactions by using the "class which implements an interface equal to" condition. So I've ended up having both rules running, with different priorities. If the first rule ("class that extends a class equal to") doesn't detect the transaction, the 2nd rule ("class that implements an interface equal to") will.
Still not sure why the "extends" rule wasn't working.
The ticket can be closed, thank you.
Regards,
Radu
User | Count |
---|---|
2 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 |
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form