You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now, our wizards are very opinionated and enable Sentry features by default (e.g. performance monitoring and Replay). On the one hand, this is super convenient for users as the setup is very easy as a result. However, we've had multiple occasions where users didn't want a specific feature (e.g. #554). Also for billing and quota management it'd make sense to give users more control over which features they want to enable within the SDK.
Rough plan:
Ask user if they want to configure sentry features or add everything by default (think of normal vs expert mode in good old windows installers :D)
Allow feature selection for main Sentry features:
Errors (always)
Performance
Replay (if applicable)
Profiling (if applicable)
If it makes sense, make framework SDK specific features selectable per wizard (whatever makes sense for the platform)
let's be cautios here: Only do this if there's a legit reason that users would not want to enable a feature.
Update wizard develop spec that wizards should allow more configuration (i.e. move away from being very opinionated)
The content you are editing has changed. Please copy your edits and refresh the page.
idea
If we walk users through configuring the products they want, we could also ask them if they want us to optimize for bundle size and configure tree shaking according the products they selected
Right now, our wizards are very opinionated and enable Sentry features by default (e.g. performance monitoring and Replay). On the one hand, this is super convenient for users as the setup is very easy as a result. However, we've had multiple occasions where users didn't want a specific feature (e.g. #554). Also for billing and quota management it'd make sense to give users more control over which features they want to enable within the SDK.
Rough plan:
High Prio
Low-Prio
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: