fix: normalize frame in-app resolution for modules & function prefixes #2234
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
vaind
changed the title
|
LGTM. Please update the tests and changelog to fix check failures. |
vaind
force-pushed
the
chore/in-app-resolution-benchmark
branch
from
9a00f8b
to
0c7e5c7
Compare
mattjohnsonpint
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Originally, I was concerned about the in-app resolution implementation not using binary prefix search especially since it would be used in profiling where there are easily thousands of frames. I've added a micro-benchmark to measure the current implementation but it looks good enough to me at the moment.
Then, I noticed some frames in profiling are recognized in-app even though they're coming from Sentry so I've added test cases to cover that and updated the resolution code.
Forgive me for mixing up concerns in this PR, I just didn't want to add it to the Profiling one to make it even less digestable.