feat(core): Add logger to core and allow scope to be passed log methods

[AbhiPrasad]

Supercedes #16874

This PR makes two changes

1. It adds logger as an export to @sentry/core, and then refactors the browser, cloudflare and vercel-edge packages to just re-export @sentry/core's logger.

This change makes it easy to use logging in an isomorphic way, and reduces duplication between our various packages. We couldn't change the export from node-core because it has a different type signature than the standard logger.

2. It expands the logger exports to accept an optional scope argument. This allows for users to provide their own custom clients to the methods, which helps with standalone client cases.

import * as Sentry from "@sentry/browser";

const client = createMySentryClient();
const scope = new Sentry.Scope();
scope.setClient(client);

Sentry.logger.info("Hello World!", {}, { scope });

[github-actions]

node-overhead report 🧳

Note: This is a synthetic benchmark with a minimal express app and does not necessarily reflect the real-world performance impact in an application.

Scenario	Requests/s	% of Baseline	Prev. Requests/s	Change %
GET Baseline	9,290	-	8,870	+5%
GET With Sentry	1,422	15%	1,378	+3%
GET With Sentry (error only)	6,119	66%	5,946	+3%
POST Baseline	1,211	-	1,176	+3%
POST With Sentry	530	44%	492	+8%
POST With Sentry (error only)	1,075	89%	988	+9%
MYSQL Baseline	3,342	-	3,255	+3%
MYSQL With Sentry	516	15%	450	+15%
MYSQL With Sentry (error only)	2,714	81%	2,620	+4%

View base workflow run

[Lms24]

LGTM, just a general question regarding the scope parameter: AFAICT, we only use it to get the scope's client. No complaints with that but I'm wondering if you chose to go with scope to potentially extract other scope data as well in the future? If not, wouldn't it be easier to let users pass in the client directly?
Just a thought, as I said, the scope approach is fine.

[Lms24]

does this mean we can remove log.ts from browser?

[AbhiPrasad]

This was removed, git just tracked it as a renamed

[AbhiPrasad]

LGTM, just a general question regarding the scope parameter: AFAICT, we only use it to get the scope's client. No complaints with that but I'm wondering if you chose to go with scope to potentially extract other scope data as well in the future? If not, wouldn't it be easier to let users pass in the client directly? Just a thought, as I said, the scope approach is fine.

We use the scope to grab tracing info + user attributes:

sentry-javascript/packages/core/src/logs/internal.ts

Lines 134 to 142 in e8359c4

	const [, traceContext] = _getTraceInfoFromScope(client, currentScope);
	const processedLogAttributes = {
	...beforeLog.attributes,
	};
	const {
	user: { id, email, username },
	} = getMergedScopeData(currentScope);

The variable is just called currentScope when it's used, so it's a bit confusing to trace the path.