-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 452
Allow multiple UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegrations to be active #4462
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
Open
lbloder
wants to merge
2
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/multiple-uncaught-exception-handlers
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, any specific reason we limit this to
globalScope
only? Shouldn't we comparescopes == currentHandlerIntegration.scopes
given that the integration works on thescopes
level?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My thinking was to allow exactly one
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
to be registered per Sentry instance. For that I used theglobalScope
as it is never forked.With the new
close
logic, however, I think we could also do what you suggested and usescopes
instead. But I'd have to test how this behavesDo you see any pros/cons for one over the other?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not much pros for now, but if we change how Scopes behave under-the-hood this may break in theory. And also "per Sentry instance" probably implies
Scopes
rather thanglobalScope
. I ran the test locally after changing this condition to comparingscopes
and it still passed. So, up to you :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I get your point regarding the inner workings of
Scopes
. I basically tried to be pretty conservative here as to not cause a regression of #3266.In theory, with your suggestions, one can register multiple
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
by passing a forkedScopes
instance to theregister
method. Then again, if allUncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances are passed into the integration list ofSentryOptions
as per the documentation, they should still clean up nicely.This will register two
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances, because by forking theScopes
we get a newScopes
instance.If the integrations are added to the Sentry options:
Then closing either the original or forked scopes will close both
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances.I'm fine with both approaches. I think the question becomes whether we want to allow that behaviour. WDYT?