[RUM-13448] Add source code context injection for microfrontend

[amortemousque]

What and why?

This PR adds source code context injection capabilities to the RUM plugin, enabling customers to identify which microfrontend originates each RUM event in their applications. It focuses on setups with separated bundles loaded via dynamic imports (e.g., module federation) by injecting source code metadata at entry points.

How?

• New sourceCodeContext option in RUM plugin config that accepts service and version
• Injects minified, SSR-safe snippet that creates DD_SOURCE_CODE_CONTEXT global variable mapping stack traces to service/version metadata
• E2E tests validating the RUM event enrichment

Usage

const { datadogWebpackPlugin } = require('@datadog/webpack-plugin');

module.exports = {
  plugins: [
    datadogWebpackPlugin({
      rum: {
        enable: true,
        sourceCodeContext: {
            service: SERVICE_NAME,
            version: SERVICE_VERSION,
        },
      },
    }),
  ],
};`

[yoannmoinet]

Looks super good.
Thanks for tackling this.

Do you think you could also update ownership of the plugin?

build-plugins/.github/CODEOWNERS

Line 26 in ae68609

packages/plugins/rum @yoannmoinet

I mostly had small comments.

[BeltranBulbarellaDD]

Looks good!

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: 906889e | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!}

[yoannmoinet]

Added some comments.
Nothing too bad.

[BeltranBulbarellaDD]

LGTM

[bcaudan]

❓ question: ‏is there a use case that we want to explicitly support with omitting version?

[amortemousque]

What if you want to enrich the event with the owner (service) but don’t care about the version or unminification?
Do you think we should enforce the version to prepare customers for the unminification use case?

[bcaudan]

hum, maybe we add could have everything optional then 🤔
And later add context in the options as well.

[amortemousque]

Yeah, for now the use case is ownership assignment. Since we don’t have other features to inject yet, I’d rather make the field required to prevent empty options. We can definitely reassess once we add new capabilities.

[bcaudan]

Nice work

[yoannmoinet]

LGTM, well done!

[amortemousque]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-02-04 15:48:16 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-02-04 15:48:25 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: waiting for PR to be ready

This pull request is not mergeable according to GitHub. Common reasons include pending required checks, missing approvals, or merge conflicts — but it could also be blocked by other repository rules or settings.
It will be added to the queue as soon as checks pass and/or get approvals. View in MergeQueue UI.
Note: if you pushed new commits since the last approval, you may need additional approval.
You can remove it from the waiting list with /remove command.

---

2026-02-04 16:06:14 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was already merged

This pull request was merged directly.