Codecov Report

Base: 98.63% // Head: 98.62% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (7b5e21b) compared to base (193446b).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head 7b5e21b differs from pull request most recent head bbce93f. Consider uploading reports for the commit bbce93f to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1838      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.63%   98.62%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         157      157              
  Lines       10009    10059      +50     
==========================================
+ Hits         9872     9921      +49     
- Misses        137      138       +1     

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

@st0012 The UI is still WIP. So far only JS and python SDKs have this API, and ingest is partially ready. UI work will follow in the coming month.

@sl0thentr0py I feel it'll be more useful to have something like

transaction.measure("metrics.foo", "millisecond") do
  # operation
end

# and also

Sentry.measure_with_transaction("metrics.foo", "millisecond", transaction: optional_transaction) do
  # operation
end

And then the measurement can be set without manually retrieving the transaction.

ping @sl0thentr0py

@st0012 I'll take a look at this tomorrow, but just wanted to say we shouldn't actually ship this till measurements are ready end-end in the product. We added the python/JS stuff to get started internally for development.

Ah I see. In that case, no need to rush it then 👍

This pull request has gone three weeks without activity. In another week, I will close it.

But! If you comment or otherwise update it, I will reset the clock, and if you label it Status: Backlog or Status: In Progress, I will leave it alone ... forever!

"A weed is but an unloved flower." ― Ella Wheeler Wilcox 🥀

@st0012 will review this shortly, but if we wanna include this now, I think we don't need this to be experimental anymore.

Re: the top-level API helpers like Sentry.measure_with_transaction, we have to decide internally on naming/behavior but we can ship those separately afterwards.

If the name is still not settled, I'm fine with merging it later. I was justing seeing if things can be shipped together, not that I wanted to push this 🙂

alright, yea let's leave this for the next minor then, the UI is still WIP so it's fine to push this a bit later.

ok UI landed now
getsentry/sentry#39543

any updates on this? Our team would appreciate this functionality a lot

@sl0thentr0py So once I rebased this PR, it'll be ok to merge it?

yes I was planning to merge this this week, go ahead!