Remove null keys/values before creating concurrent hashmap

[lbloder]

📜 Description

Cleanup null values from deserialised extra map before creating a ConcurrentHashMap from it.
ConcurrentHashMap cannot handle null keys or values

💡 Motivation and Context

Fixes #2681

💚 How did you test it?

📝 Checklist

• I reviewed the submitted code.
• I added tests to verify the changes.
• No new PII added or SDK only sends newly added PII if sendDefaultPII is enabled.
• I updated the docs if needed.
• Review from the native team if needed.
• No breaking change or entry added to the changelog.
• No breaking change for hybrid SDKs or communicated to hybrid SDKs.

🔮 Next steps

[lbloder]

Hey @romtsn and @adinauer,
WDYT, is cleaning up the map before creating the concurrent hash map the right thing to do here? My line of thinking was that it would be nice to keep all valid values in the extras map.
Another possible solution would be to just surround it with try/catch and not adding any extras.

Could the same thing potentially happen with the tags?

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	334.58 ms	353.80 ms	19.22 ms
Size	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.47 KiB

Previous results on branch: fix/handle_null_values_event_extras

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
d25f425	304.04 ms	360.30 ms	56.26 ms
cc2c183	285.52 ms	340.71 ms	55.19 ms
5770a02	326.89 ms	361.60 ms	34.71 ms
b5ce73a	299.49 ms	336.00 ms	36.51 ms
f0de9d9	284.78 ms	325.86 ms	41.08 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
d25f425	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.47 KiB
cc2c183	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.47 KiB
5770a02	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.47 KiB
b5ce73a	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.54 KiB
f0de9d9	1.72 MiB	2.28 MiB	565.47 KiB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 83.33% and project coverage change: -0.01 ⚠️

Comparison is base (5a573d4) 81.07% compared to head (20013cf) 81.07%.

❗ Current head 20013cf differs from pull request most recent head 81fa32c. Consider uploading reports for the commit 81fa32c to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #2708      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     81.07%   81.07%   -0.01%     
- Complexity     4432     4434       +2     
============================================
  Files           345      345              
  Lines         16358    16363       +5     
  Branches       2219     2221       +2     
============================================
+ Hits          13263    13267       +4     
  Misses         2167     2167              
- Partials        928      929       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../src/main/java/io/sentry/util/CollectionUtils.java	57.89% <83.33%> (+3.34%)	⬆️

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

[adinauer]

Another possible solution would be to just surround it with try/catch and not adding any extras.

I'd prefer keeping as much data as possible.

I think moving the null stripping into CollectionUtils makes sense.

[adinauer]

Should we do this in CollectionUtils.newConcurrentHashMap to apply to all places? I presume this problem could happen anywhere we create a ConcurrentHashMap.

[lbloder]

Yeah, I think that would make sense.

[adinauer]

LGTM

[github-actions]

	Fails
🚫	Please consider adding a changelog entry for the next release.

Instructions and example for changelog

Please add an entry to CHANGELOG.md to the "Unreleased" section. Make sure the entry includes this PR's number.

Example:

## Unreleased

- Remove null keys/values before creating concurrent hashmap ([#2708](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-java/pull/2708))

If none of the above apply, you can opt out of this check by adding #skip-changelog to the PR description.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 81fa32c