Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refacto : initialize Sentryclient with SentryOptions #118

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

rxlabz
Copy link
Contributor

@rxlabz rxlabz commented Oct 20, 2020

📢 Type of change

  • Bugfix
  • New feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactoring

📜 Description

make SentryClient use a SentryOptions

💡 Motivation and Context

part of unified api goal https://develop.sentry.dev/sdk/unified-api/#hub

💚 How did you test it?

current test update

📝 Checklist

  • I reviewed submitted code
  • I added tests to verify changes
  • All tests passing
  • No breaking changes

🔮 Next steps

@rxlabz rxlabz changed the base branch from main to feature/unified-api October 20, 2020 14:51
@rxlabz rxlabz force-pushed the feat/refacto-client branch from 11d7b48 to 734c82a Compare October 20, 2020 14:59
@rxlabz rxlabz marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2020 15:26
@rxlabz rxlabz changed the title Feat/refacto client Feat/refacto client : use SentryOptions Oct 20, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@marandaneto marandaneto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

ps: I'd suggest using the changelog and PRs title aligned.

@rxlabz rxlabz changed the title Feat/refacto client : use SentryOptions Refacto : initialize Sentryclient with SentryOptions Oct 20, 2020
@rxlabz rxlabz merged commit af3ecc0 into feature/unified-api Oct 20, 2020
@rxlabz rxlabz deleted the feat/refacto-client branch October 20, 2020 17:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants