-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 427
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
Ability to filter by "user-perceived" unhandled exceptions/fatal errors generated by the Kotlin SDK #3425
Comments
Assigning to @getsentry/support for routing ⏲️ |
Routing to @getsentry/product-owners-issues for triage ⏲️ |
I want to provide more context on this, as I was wrong when I initially suggested that it was the coroutines exception handler was the primary cause of this observability hole. I had more time to do debugging this week and fully identify the cause of the crash. Here's the scenario: Let's say we have What is actually happening, is that because no local coroutine exception handler exists, the global coroutines exception handler re-throws the exception, and crashes This leads me to the question: Would it be possible to have two crash free rates? One which calculates the number of sessions that experienced a crash and a second one (the same as the current crash free rate) that calculates the number of sessions that ended with a crash. This would allow Sentry to provide the more nuanced context that the Play Store console shows. |
I believe that to get this working in Issues we must first get it as a tag from the SDK, so I'm transferring this issue. |
@anthonycr @arifken we report fatally crashed sessions as Also, can you confirm if this is about the Kotlin Multiplatform SDK? |
I'm not sure if this is correct, because we actually finish the session if our exception handler encountered a crash, see here: sentry-java/sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/SentryClient.java Lines 540 to 543 in 84892a8
I'm still not sure what the original request of this issue is: would you like to distinguish between user-perceived crashes vs not, or would you like us to fix the coroutine exception handling? I'm a bit lost I guess, sorry |
also for the reference, this is what Google Play means by "user-perceived": https://developer.android.com/topic/performance/vitals/crash#android-vitals |
The primary goal is to be able to distinguish between user-perceived crashes vs. not (ideally some sort of a query option we could use in discover, dashboards, and alerts) |
You can query for fatal crashes happening while the app was in foreground (which is the main factor used to define user perceived) like so: |
we were seeing a scenario where the crash was actually happening while the app was in the foreground, but the application itself was not terminated. that is, Activity 2 was stacked on top of Activity 1, and a user interaction caused a crash in Activity 2, which triggered Activity 1 to restart. For some reason, it seems that is not treated as a "user perceived" crash. Maybe there's a way for us to create a sample project to demonstrate the issue, would that be helpful? The google docs on user perceived crashes seem clear, but I think they're obfuscating what the Android OS is actually doing.
I'll defer to @arifken on this. |
Yeah, a sample project is always welcome, would definitely help us investigate, thank you! |
We definitely can look into the new-ish behavior when multiple activities are on the stack and a crash just closes the topmost one, or in other words the app is not terminated. |
Problem Statement
Due to the behavior of coroutines exception handling, a failure to catch the exception can sometimes result in a crash, if the request was made from certain contexts, and can be swallowed when made from others.
In both of these cases, Sentry labels the error as
level:fatal
withexception.handled:false
. However, this creates the possibility for a spike in "crashes" that do not actually crash the app for the user.We recently encountered this issue with a
android_getaddrinfo
exception, where a user was trying to make a network connection while in airplane mode. What we saw is a huge spike in errors in Sentry, but when we went to Google Play, we were able to filter by user-perceived errors and see that the actual count of crashes for this issue was very very low.It appears that Sentry's "Crash free user rate" takes into consideration fatal errors that are "user perceived" vs. not (the spike in errors did not impact our crash free user rate).
Solution Brainstorm
We'd love to be able to query by
user_perceived:true
in Discover, Dashboards, and Alerts (for error data sources) so that we can differentiate between user-perceived vs non-main thread crashes ourselves.when specifying
user_perceived:true
, I would expect to only see crashes that resulted in the Android app closing, and contribute to the crash-free user rate shown by Sentry.when specifying
user_perceived:false level:fatal
, I would expect to only see errors that are swallowed up by the parent coroutine and do not actually crash the app for the user.Product Area
Issues
┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Improvement by Unito
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: