Skip to content

Conversation

stefanosiano
Copy link
Member

📜 Description

added AndroidRuntimeManager.runWithRelaxedPolicy to

  • AndroidEnvelopeCache
  • Installation.id calls
  • DeviceInfoUtil updated tests

💡 Motivation and Context

Follwup of #4724

💚 How did you test it?

📝 Checklist

  • I added GH Issue ID & Linear ID
  • 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.
  • I updated the wizard 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

* AndroidEnvelopeCache
* Installation.id calls
* DeviceInfoUtil
updated tests
Copy link
Contributor

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code has higher potential to break the SDK and may be hard to test. To prevent severe bugs, apply the rollout process for releasing such changes and be extra careful when changing and reviewing these files:

  • sentry-android-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/android/core/InternalSentrySdk.java

@stefanosiano stefanosiano mentioned this pull request Oct 14, 2025
7 tasks
@stefanosiano stefanosiano marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2025 15:00
Copy link
Contributor

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code has higher potential to break the SDK and may be hard to test. To prevent severe bugs, apply the rollout process for releasing such changes and be extra careful when changing and reviewing these files:

  • sentry-android-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/android/core/InternalSentrySdk.java

Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 14, 2025

Performance metrics 🚀

  Plain With Sentry Diff
Startup time 359.74 ms 403.84 ms 44.10 ms
Size 1.58 MiB 2.11 MiB 539.89 KiB

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
3d205d0 352.15 ms 432.53 ms 80.38 ms
bdbe1f4 380.66 ms 464.44 ms 83.78 ms
9fbb112 359.71 ms 421.85 ms 62.14 ms
ee747ae 386.94 ms 431.43 ms 44.49 ms
3998a95 415.94 ms 478.54 ms 62.60 ms
14ff5ee 419.75 ms 495.73 ms 75.98 ms
ee747ae 554.98 ms 611.50 ms 56.52 ms
b750b96 408.98 ms 480.32 ms 71.34 ms
c8125f3 397.65 ms 485.14 ms 87.49 ms
b750b96 421.25 ms 444.09 ms 22.84 ms

App size

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
3d205d0 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 532.97 KiB
bdbe1f4 1.58 MiB 2.11 MiB 538.88 KiB
9fbb112 1.58 MiB 2.11 MiB 539.18 KiB
ee747ae 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 530.95 KiB
3998a95 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 532.96 KiB
14ff5ee 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 535.08 KiB
ee747ae 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 530.95 KiB
b750b96 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 533.19 KiB
c8125f3 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 532.32 KiB
b750b96 1.58 MiB 2.10 MiB 533.20 KiB

Previous results on branch: stefanosiano/fix/strict-mode-followup

Startup times

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
8698d00 425.12 ms 463.00 ms 37.88 ms

App size

Revision Plain With Sentry Diff
8698d00 1.58 MiB 2.11 MiB 539.89 KiB

Copy link
Contributor

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code has higher potential to break the SDK and may be hard to test. To prevent severe bugs, apply the rollout process for releasing such changes and be extra careful when changing and reviewing these files:

  • sentry-android-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/android/core/InternalSentrySdk.java

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.

Looks good to me! I'd add tests to verify exceptions are thrown correctly.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Could you add a test to ensure if an exception is thrown it's properly propagated and not silently swallowed?


### Fixes

- Avoid StrictMode warnings (followup) ([#4809](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-java/pull/4809))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure if it's worth mentioning that as a separate item, maybe combine it with the line below? Not sure if the danger check likes that though 😅

called = true
throw Exception("Test exception")
}
} catch (_: Exception) {}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe extend the test to assert that the exception is thrown, something like this:

Suggested change
} catch (_: Exception) {}
} catch (_: Exception) {
exceptionThrown = true
}

device.setExternalStorageSize(getTotalExternalStorage(externalStorageStat));
device.setExternalFreeStorage(getUnusedExternalStorage(externalStorageStat));
}
options
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We do this to have a base of 0 strictmode warnings, right? I'm just wondering if we should keep this as-is, as the collection of these attributes can be turned off via settings anyway.

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.

2 participants