Improve start transaction overloads

[adinauer]

📜 Description

Remove startTransaction overloads that can be replaced by passing TransactionOptions.

💡 Motivation and Context

Closes #2754

💚 How did you test it?

📝 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

[adinauer]

Do we wanna keep this overload that allows passing in a description?

[romtsn]

yep, I think I'd keep it as description is quite popular to set, and we also use it for indexing spans in starfish, so it's an important field

[github-actions]

	Fails
🚫	Please consider adding a changelog entry for the next release.

	Messages
📖	Do not forget to update Sentry-docs with your feature once the pull request gets approved.

Instructions and example for changelog

Please add an entry to CHANGELOG.md to the "Unreleased" section. Make sure the entry includes this PR's number.

Example:

## Unreleased

- Improve start transaction overloads ([#2964](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-java/pull/2964))

If none of the above apply, you can opt out of this check by adding #skip-changelog to the PR description.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 3efcf65

[adinauer]

Not quite sure we wanna take on startChild on the transaction as well. We'd have to move some params onto SpanOptions which in case of instrumenter would be weird since TransactionOptions inherits it and then on startTransaction it'd be confusing for users as there'd be an instrumenter option on TransactionOptions (via SpanOptions) and also on TransactionContext (which is actually used for transactions).

[romtsn]

LGTM, thanks! still needs a changelog entry though

[romtsn]

Not quite sure we wanna take on startChild on the transaction as well. We'd have to move some params onto SpanOptions which in case of instrumenter would be weird since TransactionOptions inherits it and then on startTransaction it'd be confusing for users as there'd be an instrumenter option on TransactionOptions (via SpanOptions) and also on TransactionContext (which is actually used for transactions).

yeah, I think it's fine to skip this one, it's also just 5 overloads there, not that bad

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	399.47 ms	470.12 ms	70.65 ms
Size	1.72 MiB	2.26 MiB	550.19 KiB

Baseline results on branch: feat/7.0.0

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
ff784c6	388.51 ms	461.90 ms	73.39 ms
6684058	414.76 ms	511.46 ms	96.70 ms
db8763d	386.60 ms	453.66 ms	67.06 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
ff784c6	1.72 MiB	2.26 MiB	550.22 KiB
6684058	1.72 MiB	2.26 MiB	550.19 KiB
db8763d	1.72 MiB	2.26 MiB	550.22 KiB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Files	Coverage Δ
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Hub.java	75.77% <ø> (-0.22%)	⬇️
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/HubAdapter.java	91.54% <ø> (-0.24%)	⬇️
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/IHub.java	95.23% <100.00%> (+3.23%)	⬆️
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/NoOpHub.java	46.93% <ø> (+1.84%)	⬆️
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Sentry.java	87.39% <100.00%> (+0.89%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!.