adding scope methods to sentry static class

[marandaneto]

📢 Type of change

• Bugfix
• New feature
• Enhancement
• Refactoring

📜 Description

adding scope methods to sentry static class

💡 Motivation and Context

making migration easier, otherwise one will need to call Sentry.configureScope(...)

💚 How did you test it?

I'll do unit tests

📝 Checklist

• I reviewed submitted code
• I added tests to verify changes
• All tests passing

🔮 Next steps

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #179 into master will increase coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 55.78%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #179      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage      57.8%   58.11%   +0.31%     
- Complexity      532      552      +20     
============================================
  Files            73       73              
  Lines          2529     2617      +88     
  Branches        223      233      +10     
============================================
+ Hits           1462     1521      +59     
- Misses          958      978      +20     
- Partials        109      118       +9

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
sentry-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/core/IHub.java	100% <ø> (ø)	4 <0> (ø)	⬇️
.../src/main/java/io/sentry/core/cache/DiskCache.java	53.03% <ø> (ø)	12 <0> (ø)	⬇️
.../java/io/sentry/core/transport/NoOpEventCache.java	0% <ø> (ø)	0 <0> (ø)	⬇️
...ntry/core/UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration.java	77.04% <ø> (ø)	9 <0> (ø)	⬇️
...ntry-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/core/Sentry.java	0% <0%> (ø)	0 <0> (ø)	⬇️
...try-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/core/NoOpHub.java	69.56% <0%> (-30.44%)	16 <0> (ø)
...entry-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/core/Scope.java	87.95% <100%> (+2.4%)	28 <1> (+1)	⬆️
sentry-core/src/main/java/io/sentry/core/Hub.java	67.47% <72.05%> (+1.25%)	55 <19> (+17)	⬆️
...rc/main/java/io/sentry/core/CircularFifoQueue.java	37.39% <0%> (+4.06%)	18% <0%> (+1%)	⬆️
...in/java/io/sentry/core/SynchronizedCollection.java	35.29% <0%> (+7.84%)	8% <0%> (+1%)	⬆️

---

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 cee0f0a...7dabcdb. Read the comment docs.

[bruno-garcia]

I'd like to record my thinking here for @fdrabek and @HazAT .
Adding these method to Sentry. is not ideal. The reason is, now there's even more ways to do simple stuff, but this is more unclear how it works.

Sentry.setLevel();
Sentry.pushScope();
Sentry.setLevel();

It looks even more like magic. What's happening under the hood that the ambient data propagates down?

Also, not all methods are on Sentry. which means we still need configureScope. This makes it extra confusing. If we're going this direction, I'd say we add everything to Sentry. and dump configureScope all together (which is not my favorite option anyway).

The argument to do this in JS was that passing a cloujure was "too advance" for our users. That one never made much sense.
But the real motive was to make it easier to port from old users. One on in Java has requested that yet. We could simply provide a migration guide.

There was no pushScope. There's anyway a new concept. We need to introduce users to the new concept anyway.

Instead of poluting the API I believe we should figure out a way to get this to work with async frameworks because Sentry.setLevel will not work at all. Neither is our current scope management based on thread-local-storage.

[HazAT]

@bruno-garcia

But the real motive was to make it easier to port from old users. One on in Java has requested that yet. We could simply provide a migration guide.

True, no one requested it yet but the number of people potentially not updating because they can't simply string replace

eventBuilder.withExtra(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
// with
Sentry.setExtra(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());

is something that's hard to measure. Just one person writing could mean, a 100 users didn't even bother to write an issue and another 1000 users complety discarded the idea of upgrading.

I agree with your side of adding more API is generally always bad I think we need to take the hit in order to make it simpler, even it's just for a few users.

Also, those functions were so people don't need to even understand what a scope is. We don't want to force anyone learning how powerful a scope can be, if they have a problem they can't solve with a simple setTag, then it's time they move to learn about scopes and not earlier.

All things aside, I think it would make sense to have a general discussion about the unified API, specifically talking about what we've learned in the last 1-2 years about it. It's for sure we would make some things a bit different.