ref(core): Replace Scope.clone() with non-static scope.clone()
#9801
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
lforst
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
size-limit report 📦
|
AbhiPrasad
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2023
|
We used Not sure what the best solution is. |
|
So for now function cloneScope(scope?: Scope): Scope {
return scope ? scope.clone() : new Scope();
}Or what do you mean? |
|
The The previous clone copied all the properties off the supplied scope: public static clone(scope?: Scope): Scope {
const newScope = new Scope();
if (scope) {
newScope._breadcrumbs = [...scope._breadcrumbs];
newScope._tags = { ...scope._tags };
newScope._extra = { ...scope._extra };
newScope._contexts = { ...scope._contexts }; |
|
We can fudge this with types in the Electron SDK but my concern would be that if any private properties in |
|
Ahh, I see, so you're basically duck-typing IMHO maybe the better solution for this is to have something like |
Yep!
That would work. Want me to do the PR? |
I think I'd hold off on that until we have the scope changes done, as this is a bit in flux right now! This should happen very soon though, I'll ping you then! :) |
mydea
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as `captureContext` to capture methods, the returned scope is not used. The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in `scope.update(fn)` - we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value of `fn`, but `fn` receives the `scope` as argument, does nothing with the return type of `fn` and just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed that `scope.update` would actually return the scope (also, the return type of it is `this` which is not correct there). This PR changes this so that the returned scope of `fn` is actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass a `scope` directly - so this is fundamentally the same now: ```js const otherScope = new Scope(); scope.update(otherScope); scope.update(() => otherScope); ``` (which before would have had vastly different outcomes!) I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work. Fixes #10686
mydea
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as `captureContext` to capture methods, the returned scope is not used. The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in `scope.update(fn)` - we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value of `fn`, but `fn` receives the `scope` as argument, does nothing with the return type of `fn` and just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed that `scope.update` would actually return the scope (also, the return type of it is `this` which is not correct there). This PR changes this so that the returned scope of `fn` is actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass a `scope` directly - so this is fundamentally the same now: ```js const otherScope = new Scope(); scope.update(otherScope); scope.update(() => otherScope); ``` (which before would have had vastly different outcomes!) I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work. Fixes #10686
mydea
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 20, 2024
…#10737) Backport to v7. In #9801, we introduced a regression that if you pass a function as `captureContext` to capture methods, the returned scope is not used. The cause for this was a confusion on my end, based on the slightly weird way this works in `scope.update(fn)` - we don't actually merge this or update the scope based on the return value of `fn`, but `fn` receives the `scope` as argument, does nothing with the return type of `fn` and just returns it - which we didn't use, because I assumed that `scope.update` would actually return the scope (also, the return type of it is `this` which is not correct there). This PR changes this so that the returned scope of `fn` is actually merged with the scope, same as if you'd pass a `scope` directly - so this is fundamentally the same now: ```js const otherScope = new Scope(); scope.update(otherScope); scope.update(() => otherScope); ``` (which before would have had vastly different outcomes!) I added a bunch of tests to verify how this works/should work. Fixes #10686
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.
To avoid this static method there. It is deprecated to use
Scope.clone()(but still works), but better to just usescope.clone()ornew Scope()directly.