@sentry review

bugbot review

🚨 Bugbot couldn't run

Something went wrong. Try again by commenting "Cursor review" or "bugbot run", or contact support (requestId: serverGenReqId_8ec61e90-31f9-40d2-9718-56e6535d466d).

bugbot review

@sentry review

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 73.47%. Comparing base (e58a8f1) to head (84380b4).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4566   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.46%   73.47%           
=======================================
  Files         482      482           
  Lines       17678    17682    +4     
  Branches     3493     3493           
=======================================
+ Hits        12988    12992    +4     
  Misses       3800     3800           
  Partials      890      890           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

I'm not 100 % convinced of the origin names that we use right now, but also don't have a concrete suggestion in store ... if you don't mind, I'll let my mind wander a bit and will get back to you soon.
Also, feedback from other reviewers appreciated. @jamescrosswell what do you think?

From memory, we started setting the sentry.origin initially to support tracing... so the naming conventions for these were made with that in mind. It's even titled Trace Origin in the dev docs.

• The first/type part of the origin is obvious (either manual or auto).
• The second/category part is somewhat subjective (e.g. db or ui) and we try to match whatever the other SDKs are doing here... but some judgement required on our part since the specific databases etc. we're integrating with will often be .NET specific
• The third part is the integration name. Ideally this would match the name we used for the integration in our source... so for example in the Sentry.EntityFramework integration we used the origin auto.db.entity_framework. The challenge is that our NuGet packages are optimised to minimise dependencies, so where we can integrate from the Sentry.nupkg without any extra dependencies, we do... which I think is why we ended up with stuff like auto.graphql (in the base Sentry NuGet).
• I don't think we use the fourth part / integration-part anywhere in the .NET SDK...

Whoops, forgot to mention that we will be consolidating the category for sentry.origin across other Sentry SDKs! Once we have decided on what category, I'll mark this PR as ready..