Add cpu usage collection

[stefanosiano]

📜 Description

added ICpuCollector to collect cpu usage info while transactions are running
TransactionPerformanceCollector now returns PerformanceCollectionData, which contains both memory and cpu usage data

💡 Motivation and Context

We want to track a time series of cpu percentage usage while a transaction runs, to provide more info to the user.

💚 How did you test it?

Unit tests

📝 Checklist

• I reviewed the submitted code
• I added tests to verify the changes
• I updated the docs if needed
• No breaking changes

🔮 Next steps

[github-actions]

	Messages
📖	Do not forget to update Sentry-docs with your feature once the pull request gets approved.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 427809b

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	314.65 ms	332.09 ms	17.43 ms
Size	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	622.36 KiB

Previous results on branch: feat/cpu-usage-collection

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
0ab0a9d	297.22 ms	316.27 ms	19.05 ms
cdfd579	291.23 ms	343.10 ms	51.87 ms
5d33fcf	338.68 ms	376.60 ms	37.92 ms
1c5e2af	294.08 ms	355.10 ms	61.02 ms
82b794b	334.81 ms	382.72 ms	47.91 ms
c3caa7d	407.24 ms	421.16 ms	13.92 ms
0ceda44	337.69 ms	355.46 ms	17.77 ms
20ea300	308.26 ms	366.81 ms	58.55 ms
cdc5f35	366.06 ms	404.48 ms	38.42 ms
0d15e40	346.22 ms	383.28 ms	37.06 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
0ab0a9d	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	618.94 KiB
cdfd579	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	618.94 KiB
5d33fcf	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	621.01 KiB
1c5e2af	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	620.95 KiB
82b794b	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	621.15 KiB
c3caa7d	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	621.00 KiB
0ceda44	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	622.12 KiB
20ea300	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	618.94 KiB
cdc5f35	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	621.55 KiB
0d15e40	1.73 MiB	2.33 MiB	621.01 KiB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 80.08% // Head: 80.12% // Increases project coverage by +0.03% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (427809b) compared to base (897ad85).
Patch coverage: 92.18% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #2462      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     80.08%   80.12%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     3904     3913       +9     
============================================
  Files           320      321       +1     
  Lines         14751    14779      +28     
  Branches       1950     1950              
============================================
+ Hits          11813    11841      +28     
- Misses         2168     2170       +2     
+ Partials        770      768       -2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...try/src/main/java/io/sentry/CpuCollectionData.java	66.66% <66.66%> (ø)
.../src/main/java/io/sentry/MemoryCollectionData.java	70.00% <75.00%> (ø)
...ava/io/sentry/TransactionPerformanceCollector.java	94.00% <90.47%> (+4.20%)	⬆️
...y/src/main/java/io/sentry/JavaMemoryCollector.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...main/java/io/sentry/PerformanceCollectionData.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Sentry.java	55.73% <100.00%> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/SentryOptions.java	79.32% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

[romtsn]

l: just a thought - since this a list, should we just add to it no matter what? Even if the users added their own collectors, we could still add ours?

Not applicable for JavaMemoryCollector though, since it'd be duplicating the values of AndroidMemoryCollector kinda

[stefanosiano]

Actually, only the last added Collectors would work, so we'd overwrite user's defined collectors.
Maybe we could set them as first in the list, using something like collectors.add(0, collector)
However, at the moment the collector is marked @Internal.
Should we cover this case anyway?

[romtsn]

LGTM 🚀