Web Console: Sentry/GlitchTip connections, correlation, and durable issue creation (Phase 4) #649

New Issue

2026-07-10T14:42:05-05:00

jcwalker3 commented

2026-07-10 14:42:05 -05:00

Problem statement

Sentry/GlitchTip observability and incident bridge work (#606/#607/#612) needs a console surface for connection status, error correlation, and durable Gitea issue linkage — without treating raw incidents as allocator work.

User and operational impact

Operators cannot see bridge health or correlated errors next to workflow traffic; duplicate defect issues risk.

Scope

Connection status widgets (configured/healthy/degraded) with redaction.
Correlation view: provider event ↔ Gitea issue links.
Trigger/reconcile durable issue creation only through bridge APIs (dry-run default).
Align with ADR: DB coordinates, Gitea records, Sentry observes.

Explicit non-goals

No assigning raw incidents to LLM workers.
No storing provider auth tokens in browser.
Do not re-implement entire bridge (#612) if already present — integrate.

Required implementation investigation

#606, #607, #612, incident_bridge modules, observability ADR, #631, #633.

Proposed architecture or implementation direction

Console adapters over bridge read APIs; gated apply for link/create; inbox integration (#648).

Security and workflow-safety requirements

RBAC; redaction; fail closed; no secret leakage.

Acceptance criteria

Connection health visible.
Linked issues shown for sample fingerprints.
Create/link is gated + audited + dry-runable.
Tests with mock provider payloads.
Docs reference ADR authority model.

Required tests

Bridge client mocks; redaction; gate deny tests.

Observability and audit requirements

Audit link/create actions.

Dependencies and linkage

Parent: #631 · Related: #606, #607, #612 · Soft-depends: #633, Web Console: Notifications and human-attention routing (Phase 3) (#648)

Canonical issue state

STATE: ready-for-author
WHO_IS_NEXT: author
NEXT_ACTION: Integrate Sentry/GlitchTip console views with bridge
NEXT_PROMPT: Author console integration only; PR; stop

Required final evidence

PR with views/APIs, tests, docs.

Required final response and handoff expectations

Brief PR → reviewer.

## Problem statement Sentry/GlitchTip observability and incident bridge work (#606/#607/#612) needs a **console surface** for connection status, error correlation, and durable Gitea issue linkage — without treating raw incidents as allocator work. ## User and operational impact Operators cannot see bridge health or correlated errors next to workflow traffic; duplicate defect issues risk. ## Scope * Connection status widgets (configured/healthy/degraded) with redaction. * Correlation view: provider event ↔ Gitea issue links. * Trigger/reconcile durable issue creation only through bridge APIs (dry-run default). * Align with ADR: DB coordinates, Gitea records, Sentry observes. ## Explicit non-goals * No assigning raw incidents to LLM workers. * No storing provider auth tokens in browser. * Do not re-implement entire bridge (#612) if already present — integrate. ## Required implementation investigation #606, #607, #612, incident_bridge modules, observability ADR, #631, #633. ## Proposed architecture or implementation direction Console adapters over bridge read APIs; gated apply for link/create; inbox integration (#648). ## Security and workflow-safety requirements RBAC; redaction; fail closed; no secret leakage. ## Acceptance criteria 1. Connection health visible. 2. Linked issues shown for sample fingerprints. 3. Create/link is gated + audited + dry-runable. 4. Tests with mock provider payloads. 5. Docs reference ADR authority model. ## Required tests Bridge client mocks; redaction; gate deny tests. ## Observability and audit requirements Audit link/create actions. ## Dependencies and linkage * Parent: #631 · Related: #606, #607, #612 · Soft-depends: #633, #648 ## Canonical issue state ```text STATE: ready-for-author WHO_IS_NEXT: author NEXT_ACTION: Integrate Sentry/GlitchTip console views with bridge NEXT_PROMPT: Author console integration only; PR; stop ``` ## Required final evidence PR with views/APIs, tests, docs. ## Required final response and handoff expectations Brief PR → reviewer.