core(network-requests): add initiators to debugData

[bolu-tife]

Summary

This is a feature request for #11123 to identify a network request initiator from the network-requests audit log

[bolu-tife]

Follow up from #16599

Thanks for taking this on!

Sorry we didn't respond to your earlier questions in #11123. I think this is still useful, but I'll request a small change:

initiator: {type, url, lineNumber, columnNumber}

I think the type may be useful, and I prefer to keep the data here structured rather than flat. Also might as well include the column if we're showing the line number.

Only thing we're leaving out at that point is the stack (too much info imo) and the requestId (the url is sufficient).

[bolu-tife]

I noticed that tableDetails.items (LH.Audit.Details.Table['items']) doesn't support NetworkRequest[], so I added the initiator data to debugData, which supports it because it allows a type any.
I also filtered by initiator.url because not all initiators have a URL, and even those that do might not include a lineNumber or columnNumber. This also filters out initiators with structure {"type": "other"}.

What do you think about this approach? Should it be handled differently, such as by amending the existing types? Or should the initiators be left as-is to maintain alignment with audit.details.items, even when some have no url or have undefined values for lineNumber and columnNumber?

[bolu-tife]

I'd update the failing test

[connorjclark]

line/col are zero based, so this would not include the properties when 0.

I think just including the properties as-is ({type, url: url ? UrlUtils.elideDataURI(url) : undefined, lineNumber, columnNumber}) should be fine (for example). If they are undefined then they get dropped when we serialize to JSON.

[bolu-tife]

Got it, thanks. I'd make the changes shortly.

[connorjclark]

Good point about the details type not supporting arbitrary object shapes. Forgot about that :) debugData was a good idea!

What do you think about this approach? Should it be handled differently, such as by amending the existing types? Or should the initiators be left as-is to maintain alignment with audit.details.items, even when some have no url or have undefined values for lineNumber and columnNumber?

it should be fine to include always in the debugData. When serialized to JSON, if they were undefined they will get dropped.

[connorjclark]

FYI you can ignore the failing smoke test, it's unrelated.

[connorjclark]

Thanks!