fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode"); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })();
Skip to content

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header - #18954

Merged
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item
Jan 23, 2026
Merged

fix(profiling): Add platform to envelope item header#18954
s1gr1d merged 2 commits into
developfrom
sig/profiling-header-item

Conversation

@s1gr1d

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Adds the missing platform in the envelope item header.

Related: getsentry/sentry-docs#16135

Closes https://linear.app/getsentry/issue/JS-1540/ui-profiling-add-platform-to-profile-chunk-item-header (internal Linear)

@linear

linearBot commented Jan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cursorcursorBot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Cursor Bugbot has reviewed your changes and found 1 potential issue.

Bugbot Autofix is OFF. To automatically fix reported issues with Cloud Agents, enable Autofix in the Cursor dashboard.

Comment threadpackages/browser/test/profiling/UIProfiler.test.ts
isChunkFormat?: boolean;
}

export function validateProfileItemHeader(header: Record<string, unknown>): void {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

really sorry for the nitpicking here but I'm curious on your thoughts: I don't particularly like the pattern of these "validator" functions. Here's why:

  • I have to jump when debugging tests to get to the actual assertions
  • the stack traces when the test fails point to this validator instead of the failed test. Not ideal when the validator is used in a lot of places

Also specifically for this case: We only check that the header includes some properties but we don't assert on its entire content.

I get that the larger validateProfile helper, encapsulates a lot more assertions. Making it more justified. But for this case, with only two assertions, I'd personally avoid DRY and directly add the assertions; or even change it to just one expect(header).toEqual(...) for extra robustness.

Feel free to ignore/overrule me here :D I might be missing a reason for this.

@s1gr1ds1gr1dJan 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I used this validator function here to make sure that when testing the headers, this set of assertions is used - so not a crazy reason that would overrule your concerns :D

Yes, it would make sense to just change it to this one-line assertion. The function only makes sense for the very large chunk-testing part.

Changed it to: expect(itemHeader).toEqual({ type: 'profile_chunk', platform: 'javascript' });

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d enabled auto-merge (squash) January 23, 2026 12:12

@Lms24Lms24 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for addressing my review!

@s1gr1d
s1gr1d merged commit 6432b00 into developJan 23, 2026
163 of 164 checks passed
@s1gr1d
s1gr1d deleted the sig/profiling-header-item branch January 23, 2026 12:21
Sign up for freeto 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.

3 participants

@s1gr1d@Lms24@chargome