-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 452
Allow multiple UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegrations to be active #4462
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ | |
import io.sentry.hints.TransactionEnd; | ||
import io.sentry.protocol.Mechanism; | ||
import io.sentry.protocol.SentryId; | ||
import io.sentry.util.AutoClosableReentrantLock; | ||
import io.sentry.util.HintUtils; | ||
import io.sentry.util.Objects; | ||
import java.io.Closeable; | ||
|
@@ -28,6 +29,8 @@ public final class UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration | |
/** Reference to the pre-existing uncaught exception handler. */ | ||
private @Nullable Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler defaultExceptionHandler; | ||
|
||
private static final @NotNull AutoClosableReentrantLock lock = new AutoClosableReentrantLock(); | ||
|
||
private @Nullable IScopes scopes; | ||
private @Nullable SentryOptions options; | ||
|
||
|
@@ -65,27 +68,33 @@ public final void register(final @NotNull IScopes scopes, final @NotNull SentryO | |
this.options.isEnableUncaughtExceptionHandler()); | ||
|
||
if (this.options.isEnableUncaughtExceptionHandler()) { | ||
final Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler currentHandler = | ||
threadAdapter.getDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(); | ||
if (currentHandler != null) { | ||
this.options | ||
.getLogger() | ||
.log( | ||
SentryLevel.DEBUG, | ||
"default UncaughtExceptionHandler class='" | ||
+ currentHandler.getClass().getName() | ||
+ "'"); | ||
|
||
if (currentHandler instanceof UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) { | ||
final UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration currentHandlerIntegration = | ||
(UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) currentHandler; | ||
defaultExceptionHandler = currentHandlerIntegration.defaultExceptionHandler; | ||
} else { | ||
defaultExceptionHandler = currentHandler; | ||
try (final @NotNull ISentryLifecycleToken ignored = lock.acquire()) { | ||
final Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler currentHandler = | ||
threadAdapter.getDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(); | ||
if (currentHandler != null) { | ||
this.options | ||
.getLogger() | ||
.log( | ||
SentryLevel.DEBUG, | ||
"default UncaughtExceptionHandler class='" | ||
+ currentHandler.getClass().getName() | ||
+ "'"); | ||
if (currentHandler instanceof UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) { | ||
final UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration currentHandlerIntegration = | ||
(UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) currentHandler; | ||
if (currentHandlerIntegration.scopes != null | ||
&& scopes.getGlobalScope() == currentHandlerIntegration.scopes.getGlobalScope()) { | ||
defaultExceptionHandler = currentHandlerIntegration.defaultExceptionHandler; | ||
} else { | ||
defaultExceptionHandler = currentHandler; | ||
} | ||
} else { | ||
defaultExceptionHandler = currentHandler; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
threadAdapter.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(this); | ||
threadAdapter.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(this); | ||
} | ||
|
||
this.options | ||
.getLogger() | ||
|
@@ -157,13 +166,59 @@ static Throwable getUnhandledThrowable( | |
return new ExceptionMechanismException(mechanism, thrown, thread); | ||
} | ||
|
||
/** | ||
* Remove this UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration from the exception handler chain. | ||
* | ||
* <p>If this integration is currently the default handler, restore the initial handler, if this | ||
* integration is not the current default call removeFromHandlerTree | ||
*/ | ||
@Override | ||
public void close() { | ||
if (this == threadAdapter.getDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler()) { | ||
threadAdapter.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(defaultExceptionHandler); | ||
try (final @NotNull ISentryLifecycleToken ignored = lock.acquire()) { | ||
if (this == threadAdapter.getDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler()) { | ||
threadAdapter.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler(defaultExceptionHandler); | ||
|
||
if (options != null) { | ||
options | ||
.getLogger() | ||
.log(SentryLevel.DEBUG, "UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration removed."); | ||
} | ||
} else { | ||
removeFromHandlerTree(threadAdapter.getDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler()); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
if (options != null) { | ||
options.getLogger().log(SentryLevel.DEBUG, "UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration removed."); | ||
/** | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thanks for adding the comments, makes it a lot easier to understand what it's doing. |
||
* Recursively traverses the chain of UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegrations to find and remove this | ||
* specific integration instance. | ||
* | ||
* <p>Checks if this instance is the defaultExceptionHandler of the current handler, if so replace | ||
* with its own defaultExceptionHandler, thus removing it from the chain. | ||
* | ||
* <p>If not, recursively calls itself on the next handler in | ||
* the chain. | ||
* | ||
* <p>Recursion stops if the current handler is not an instance of | ||
* UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration or the handler was found and removed. | ||
* | ||
* @param currentHandler The current handler in the chain to examine | ||
*/ | ||
private void removeFromHandlerTree(@Nullable Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler currentHandler) { | ||
if (currentHandler instanceof UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) { | ||
final UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration currentHandlerIntegration = | ||
(UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration) currentHandler; | ||
if (this == currentHandlerIntegration.defaultExceptionHandler) { | ||
currentHandlerIntegration.defaultExceptionHandler = defaultExceptionHandler; | ||
|
||
if (options != null) { | ||
options | ||
.getLogger() | ||
.log(SentryLevel.DEBUG, "UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration removed."); | ||
} | ||
|
||
} else { | ||
removeFromHandlerTree(currentHandlerIntegration.defaultExceptionHandler); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it possible to end up with infinite recursion here due to circular reference between two Sentry handlers? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Hmm, good question, theoretically yes if there is a circular reference between the handlers. Not sure if there is a scenario in which a cyclic dependency can happen. Need to play this through. We could add safety measures though to make sure we only visit each uncaught exception handler once. Or we define a max depth for the recursion. WDYT? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Whatever you find easier to implement should work fine I think. |
||
} | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, any specific reason we limit this to
globalScope
only? Shouldn't we comparescopes == currentHandlerIntegration.scopes
given that the integration works on thescopes
level?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My thinking was to allow exactly one
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
to be registered per Sentry instance. For that I used theglobalScope
as it is never forked.With the new
close
logic, however, I think we could also do what you suggested and usescopes
instead. But I'd have to test how this behavesDo you see any pros/cons for one over the other?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not much pros for now, but if we change how Scopes behave under-the-hood this may break in theory. And also "per Sentry instance" probably implies
Scopes
rather thanglobalScope
. I ran the test locally after changing this condition to comparingscopes
and it still passed. So, up to you :)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I get your point regarding the inner workings of
Scopes
. I basically tried to be pretty conservative here as to not cause a regression of #3266.In theory, with your suggestions, one can register multiple
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
by passing a forkedScopes
instance to theregister
method. Then again, if allUncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances are passed into the integration list ofSentryOptions
as per the documentation, they should still clean up nicely.This will register two
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances, because by forking theScopes
we get a newScopes
instance.If the integrations are added to the Sentry options:
Then closing either the original or forked scopes will close both
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
instances.I'm fine with both approaches. I think the question becomes whether we want to allow that behaviour. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have to be careful with SDK re-init scenarios here where we could end up regressing on #3266 and breaking the fix in #3398.
I'd err on the side of caution and only have one per global scope as currently implemented in this PR.
If the use case for having multiple instances of
UncaughtExceptionHandlerIntegration
active is separate instances of Sentry then in theory only one of them should be using static API and the other should be set up with a separate global scope as documented in https://docs.sentry.io/platforms/android/configuration/shared-environments/There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
yeah but that doc uses
Scopes