Skip to content

throw when calling Sentry.init on Android #3596

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 23, 2024
Merged

Conversation

stefanosiano
Copy link
Member

📜 Description

added a check in Sentry.init to check the options against the SentryAndroidOptions when using Android

💡 Motivation and Context

We want to avoid people on Android calling Sentry.init directly, instead of SentryAndroid.init.
Closes #3440

💚 How did you test it?

Unit tests

📝 Checklist

  • I reviewed the submitted code.
  • I added tests to verify the changes.
  • No new PII added or SDK only sends newly added PII if sendDefaultPII is enabled.
  • I updated the docs if needed.
  • Review from the native team if needed.
  • No breaking change or entry added to the changelog.
  • No breaking change for hybrid SDKs or communicated to hybrid SDKs.

🔮 Next steps

@stefanosiano stefanosiano marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2024 09:23
Copy link
Contributor

Performance metrics 🚀

  Plain With Sentry Diff
Startup time 460.87 ms 529.65 ms 68.78 ms
Size 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.45 KiB

Baseline results on branch: 8.x.x

Startup times

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
504d056 417.69 ms 492.86 ms 75.16 ms
a59fca2 560.08 ms 658.80 ms 98.71 ms
ca82680 490.88 ms 631.67 ms 140.80 ms
41e496a 408.90 ms 491.32 ms 82.42 ms
a0f7731 357.02 ms 433.40 ms 76.38 ms
2f49b9c 416.54 ms 479.14 ms 62.60 ms
57732e8 435.66 ms 510.50 ms 74.84 ms

App size

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
504d056 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.31 KiB
a59fca2 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.77 KiB
ca82680 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.31 KiB
41e496a 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.77 KiB
a0f7731 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.77 KiB
2f49b9c 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.31 KiB
57732e8 1.70 MiB 2.29 MiB 599.77 KiB

Copy link
Member

@markushi markushi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking good overall, left a comment which I want to discuss before merging - hence requesting changes until resolved 😅

@@ -264,6 +264,13 @@ public static void init(final @NotNull SentryOptions options) {
@SuppressWarnings("deprecation")
private static synchronized void init(
final @NotNull SentryOptions options, final boolean globalHubMode) {

if (!options.getClass().getName().equals("io.sentry.android.core.SentryAndroidOptions")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

m: Hmm not sure if this is the best way. If someone has it's own class MySentryOptions extends SentryAndroidOptions {} this will break.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the class is final, so I think we're good here. Or did you mean extends SentryOptions rather?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I already considered it, and as roman said, SentryAndroidOptions is final.
The only other way to consistently add this check is to add another internal API Sentry.init(options, globalHubMode, isInitFromAndroid) or similar

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh I missed the final, all good then! 👍

Co-authored-by: Markus Hintersteiner <markus.hintersteiner@sentry.io>
@stefanosiano stefanosiano merged commit 5583fa5 into 8.x.x Jul 23, 2024
20 of 21 checks passed
@stefanosiano stefanosiano deleted the fix/init-throws-android branch July 23, 2024 13:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants