Add deadline timeout for automatic transactions

[markushi]

📜 Description

Adds a timeout of 30s to automatic UI transactions.
Inspired by cocoa: https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/blob/a176fc448cf5f3ea7b188449b8170b14ce6805cf/Sources/Sentry/SentryTracer.m#L248-L266

💡 Motivation and Context

Fixes #2514

💚 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

[github-actions]

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

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 61f011b

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	342.71 ms	378.96 ms	36.25 ms
Size	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	576.28 KiB

Previous results on branch: feat/deadline-for-automatic-ui-transactions

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
8bbad89	294.88 ms	322.45 ms	27.57 ms
68087ab	278.39 ms	323.38 ms	44.99 ms
7adb6ab	266.60 ms	361.14 ms	94.55 ms
f2cbdf1	309.78 ms	356.22 ms	46.44 ms
c5d4e44	322.10 ms	375.86 ms	53.76 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
8bbad89	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	576.09 KiB
68087ab	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	575.53 KiB
7adb6ab	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	575.53 KiB
f2cbdf1	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	576.04 KiB
c5d4e44	1.72 MiB	2.29 MiB	576.09 KiB

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 87.17% and project coverage change: +0.19% 🎉

Comparison is base (9020d1b) 81.26% compared to head (61f011b) 81.45%.
Report is 42 commits behind head on feat/7.0.0.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             feat/7.0.0    #2865      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         81.26%   81.45%   +0.19%     
- Complexity         4560     4660     +100     
================================================
  Files               350      354       +4     
  Lines             16866    17153     +287     
  Branches           2272     2320      +48     
================================================
+ Hits              13706    13972     +266     
- Misses             2219     2231      +12     
- Partials            941      950       +9     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
...racing/SentrySpanClientHttpRequestInterceptor.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ebflux/SentryWebFilterWithThreadLocalAccessor.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...racing/SentrySpanClientHttpRequestInterceptor.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Breadcrumb.java	85.04% <ø> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/HostnameCache.java	90.69% <ø> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Hub.java	75.17% <ø> (ø)
.../src/main/java/io/sentry/JsonObjectSerializer.java	84.21% <ø> (ø)
...ry/src/main/java/io/sentry/ProfilingTraceData.java	78.51% <ø> (ø)
.../main/java/io/sentry/ProfilingTransactionData.java	52.52% <ø> (ø)
sentry/src/main/java/io/sentry/Scope.java	96.72% <0.00%> (-0.36%)	⬇️
... and 83 more

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[stefanosiano]

Are we going to add timeout for all of auto transactions?
I'm referring to SentrySpanProcessor or SentryNavigationListener

[markushi]

Are we going to add timeout for all of auto transactions? I'm referring to SentrySpanProcessor or SentryNavigationListener

Ah I missed SentryNavigationListener, thanks!

For SentrySpanProcessor and other more backend related transaction like SentryTracingFilter or SentryWebFilter I don't think it makes a lot of sense, @adinauer any opinions on this?

[adinauer]

The backend request transactions should in theory always be finished once the request finishes or is cancelled. Having a deadline makes sense for the annotation based @Transaction and manual transactions tho.

For the OTEL SentrySpanProcessor I think it's best to leave this to OTEL and not forcefully finish any transactions there.

Since I'm in the middle of moving our Spring Boot code into a new module in #2880 maybe it makes more sense to split out the backend part here and do it in a follow up PR.

[stefanosiano]

nice!