feat: Performance monitoring

[bruno-garcia]

This PR is not going to receive commits directly. It'll serve as base for PRs related to performance monitoring and will be merged into master without squash.

[marandaneto]

let's also pull master into feat/performance-monitoring sometimes so we resolve smaller junks of conflicts if any

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #909 (8284893) into master (ab03268) will decrease coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 92.99%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #909      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.21%   95.08%   -0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          79       88       +9     
  Lines        3577     3787     +210     
==========================================
+ Hits         3406     3601     +195     
- Misses        171      186      +15     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
Sources/Sentry/SentryClient.m	93.92% <ø> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/SentrySDK.m	88.09% <0.00%> (-2.15%)	⬇️
Sources/Sentry/SentryTransactionContext.m	33.33% <33.33%> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/TracesSampler.m	88.88% <88.88%> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/SentryTracer.m	94.73% <94.73%> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/SentryTransaction.m	94.73% <94.73%> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/Random.m	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
Sources/Sentry/SentryEnvelope.m	93.24% <100.00%> (+0.18%)	⬆️
Sources/Sentry/SentryHub.m	98.02% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
Sources/Sentry/SentryOptions.m	99.15% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
... and 13 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ab03268...8284893. Read the comment docs.

[philipphofmann]

I configured Github Actions with e08c892 for this branch.

[bruno-garcia]

let's also pull master into feat/performance-monitoring sometimes so we resolve smaller junks of conflicts if any

Yes but this time maybe rebase, so we dont' end up with a lot of merge commits into main when we merge there without squash

[philipphofmann]

I know this is WIP, and we want to see something happening, but before merging this PR, let's add tests for the new functionality. Codecov tells us the coverage is going down.

[philipphofmann]

This PR is not going to receive commits directly. It'll serve as base for PRs related to performance monitoring and will be merged into master without squash.

What about squashing this whole PR as just one commit Performance API to master? So we can just merge like crazy to this PR and don't have to rebase all the time? @bruno-garcia @marandaneto and @brustolin

[marandaneto]

This PR is not going to receive commits directly. It'll serve as base for PRs related to performance monitoring and will be merged into master without squash.

What about squashing this whole PR as just one commit Performance API to master? So we can just merge like crazy to this PR and don't have to rebase all the time? @bruno-garcia @marandaneto and @brustolin

I prefer not squashing, history might be valuable when investigating things

[philipphofmann]

What about merging this to master, as we have 7.0.0-alpha.0 already? @bruno-garcia, @marandaneto

[marandaneto]

What about merging this to master, as we have 7.0.0-alpha.0 already? @bruno-garcia, @marandaneto

there are still a few moving bits, I'd wait for the sampling context PR to be merged and work a bit on samples.
right now the samples create a transaction, start an async dispatch, and finish the transaction.

I'd prefer to have a sample that creates a transaction, start a child, finish as errored, capture an event in-between, see if it associate its data, etc, right now there are only unit tests but no real usage/similar to the reality to be sure that everything renders nicely in the UI, other than that, I'd be totally in for making an alpha, what do you think @bruno-garcia @philipphofmann @brustolin ?

[bruno-garcia]

What about merging this to master, as we have 7.0.0-alpha.0 already? @bruno-garcia, @marandaneto

there are still a few moving bits, I'd wait for the sampling context PR to be merged and work a bit on samples.
right now the samples create a transaction, start an async dispatch, and finish the transaction.

I'd prefer to have a sample that creates a transaction, start a child, finish as errored, capture an event in-between, see if it associate its data, etc, right now there are only unit tests but no real usage/similar to the reality to be sure that everything renders nicely in the UI, other than that, I'd be totally in for making an alpha, what do you think @bruno-garcia @philipphofmann @brustolin ?

Makes total sense to me! Sample would be great.

#970

[marandaneto]

@brustolin please resolve the open comments if they are already resolved, so it's easier to review it again, thanks

[marandaneto]

changelog requires merging

[marandaneto]

@bruno-garcia can we check if the sampling decision follows the correct format based on the discussion yesterday? I quite didn't fully get it yet and it'd be nice to double-check this before releasing, even if it's wrong, it'd be an easy fix.

[philipphofmann]

@bruno-garcia can we check if the sampling decision follows the correct format based on the discussion yesterday? I quite didn't fully get it yet and it'd be nice to double-check this before releasing, even if it's wrong, it'd be an easy fix.

@marandaneto, I created an issue for this #986. I think it's fine to release the alpha without this fix.

[philipphofmann]

For an alpha LGTM. I don't want to keep this on an extra branch any longer. Is there anything stopping us from merging this @bruno-garcia, @marandaneto, and @brustolin?

[marandaneto]

@bruno-garcia can we check if the sampling decision follows the correct format based on the discussion yesterday? I quite didn't fully get it yet and it'd be nice to double-check this before releasing, even if it's wrong, it'd be an easy fix.

@marandaneto, I created an issue for this #986. I think it's fine to release the alpha without this fix.

it's not about that, it's something else.

[marandaneto]

LGTM