fix(browser): Move browserTracingIntegration code to setup hook
#16386
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
size-limit report 📦
|
mydea
force-pushed
the
fn/fix-browserTracing-warning
branch
from
43e431d to
f1682cf
Compare
Lms24
approved these changes
May 26, 2025
| expect(integrations).toEqual([integration1]); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| test('it uses last passed integration only', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah nice, I think this is good behaviour and probably better than taking first one. Just in case users have some kind of dynamic behaviour that builds the integrations array.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
jup, totally, that was what we had already anyhow 👍 the test just shows that!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR removes the warning for multiple browserTracingIntegrations being setup.
We realised this warning was actually just a symptom of us running a bunch of the integration code in the function itself, not int
setup(). This lead to stuff running twice when users passed in a custom integration in addition to a default one, because the logic is basically:Now, we move all the logic to setup/setupAfterAll, so this should be safe. This means that the integration will be deduped anyhow (I added a test to make sure this is the case), and we no longer need the warning.
fixes #16369