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

Add deprecation message to Scope.transaction #4221

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

antonpirker
Copy link
Member

This is the first part of #3482

@antonpirker antonpirker requested a review from a team as a code owner April 1, 2025 10:23
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 1, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 79.51%. Comparing base (d0d70a5) to head (ceb1a23).
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4221      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.48%   79.51%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         141      141              
  Lines       15809    15810       +1     
  Branches     2703     2703              
==========================================
+ Hits        12565    12572       +7     
+ Misses       2382     2380       -2     
+ Partials      862      858       -4     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
sentry_sdk/scope.py 86.16% <100.00%> (+0.01%) ⬆️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Member

@szokeasaurusrex szokeasaurusrex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The warning looks good, but it seems like we still use Scope.transaction several places throughout the codebase.

I believe we should first remove those usages, then add the deprecation warning afterwards. Unless, is there some reason why we should instead do this change first?

@antonpirker
Copy link
Member Author

Yes you are right. Then it is not worth the effort. Closing this.

@antonpirker antonpirker closed this Apr 3, 2025
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