feat: add method unswizzling #4647
Conversation
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
philprime
requested review from
philipphofmann,
brustolin and
armcknight
as code owners
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4647 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 91.140% 91.232% +0.091%
=============================================
Files 621 622 +1
Lines 71497 71791 +294
Branches 25311 26147 +836
=============================================
+ Hits 65163 65497 +334
+ Misses 6239 6194 -45
- Partials 95 100 +5
... and 50 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Performance metrics 🚀
|
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| fcde045 | 1260.71 ms | 1275.00 ms | 14.29 ms |
| b16d18c | 1245.60 ms | 1250.94 ms | 5.34 ms |
| 51ffd8c | 1194.60 ms | 1215.70 ms | 21.10 ms |
| a9dece3 | 1224.96 ms | 1245.27 ms | 20.31 ms |
| 27f970b | 1223.48 ms | 1239.51 ms | 16.03 ms |
| 7bb0873 | 1226.18 ms | 1247.30 ms | 21.12 ms |
| 4bdf3dc | 1232.56 ms | 1252.81 ms | 20.25 ms |
| 8aba9c4 | 1236.94 ms | 1248.29 ms | 11.35 ms |
| 1734d1b | 1200.15 ms | 1214.06 ms | 13.92 ms |
| e9fa2b0 | 1226.22 ms | 1248.47 ms | 22.24 ms |
App size
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| fcde045 | 20.76 KiB | 435.26 KiB | 414.50 KiB |
| b16d18c | 20.76 KiB | 437.12 KiB | 416.36 KiB |
| 51ffd8c | 21.58 KiB | 418.70 KiB | 397.11 KiB |
| a9dece3 | 21.58 KiB | 546.20 KiB | 524.62 KiB |
| 27f970b | 21.58 KiB | 706.97 KiB | 685.39 KiB |
| 7bb0873 | 22.85 KiB | 407.09 KiB | 384.24 KiB |
| 4bdf3dc | 20.76 KiB | 434.94 KiB | 414.18 KiB |
| 8aba9c4 | 21.58 KiB | 544.72 KiB | 523.14 KiB |
| 1734d1b | 21.58 KiB | 418.82 KiB | 397.23 KiB |
| e9fa2b0 | 21.58 KiB | 629.61 KiB | 608.03 KiB |
Previous results on branch: philprime/unswizzling
Startup times
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| a9a5b1c | 1234.60 ms | 1254.16 ms | 19.56 ms |
| 1f239e8 | 1233.94 ms | 1253.76 ms | 19.82 ms |
| 4c753cb | 1218.83 ms | 1236.60 ms | 17.77 ms |
App size
| Revision | Plain | With Sentry | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| a9a5b1c | 22.32 KiB | 761.25 KiB | 738.94 KiB |
| 1f239e8 | 22.30 KiB | 760.63 KiB | 738.32 KiB |
| 4c753cb | 22.31 KiB | 766.22 KiB | 743.91 KiB |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, we already tried that in the past and it always blew up the tests. We instead chose a different approach: We don't unswizzle, but we make sure the operations are NoOps when closing the SDK. I mean we can try again, but we need some good reasons. What drove you to open this PR?
|
@philipphofmann in #4634 I added unit tests initializing the SentrySDK with an experimental feature flag enabled or disabled. If the SentrySDK is enabled, and swizzling happens, the swizzling remains even after closing and re-enabling the SentrySDK without swizzling. We could also change this PR to only unswizzle in unit tests, i.e. using |
I agree with this!! |
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
1 similar comment
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:
|
|
FYI @philipphofmann I had to remove an |
📜 Description
I adapted the method swizzling helper to keep a reference to the original implementation, so that the
unswizzlemethods can revert swizzling.💡 Motivation and Context
We are introducing a new experimental flag in #4634 to conditionally swizzle Objective-C methods. Therefore some unit tests (e.g
testFoo) swizzle methods, while others (e.g.testBar) do not. If we do not offer a functionality to unswizzle methods, they are leaking isolation, i.e.testFooruns beforetestBartherefore methods are swizzled, even tough we don't want that.This is required for #4634 to pass tests.
💚 How did you test it?
I added a unit test to test the unswizzling.
📝 Checklist
You have to check all boxes before merging:
sendDefaultPIIis enabled.🔮 Next steps
#if TESTto not be used in production