NP; improving QA feedback loops with IDE support is probably as useful as test coverage and test result metrics /? vscode distributed tracing: https://www.goog

NP; improving QA feedback loops with IDE support is probably as useful as test coverage and test result metrics /? vscode distributed tracing: https://www.google.com/search?q=vscode+distributed+tracing https://www.google.com/search?q=vscode+distributed+tracing : - jaegertracing/jaeger-vscode: https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-vscode https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger-vscode /? line-based display of distributed tracing information in vs code: https://www.google.com/search?q=line-based%20display%20of%20distributed%20tracing%20information%20in%20VS%20code https://www.google.com/search?q=line-based%20display%20of%20... : - sprkl personal observability platform: https://github.com/sprkl-dev/use-sprkl https://github.com/sprkl-dev/use-sprkl Theoretically it should be possible to correlate deployed code changes with the logs and traces preceding 500 errors; and then recreate the failure condition given a sufficient clone of production (in CI) to isolate and verify the fix before deploying new code. Practically then, each PR generates logs, traces, and metrics when tested in a test deployment and then in production. FWIU that's the "personal" part of sprkl.