feat: add method unswizzling

[philprime]

📜 Description

I adapted the method swizzling helper to keep a reference to the original implementation, so that the unswizzle methods can revert swizzling.

💡 Motivation and Context

We are introducing a new experimental flag in #4634 to conditionally swizzle Objective-C methods. Therefore some unit tests (e.g testFoo) swizzle methods, while others (e.g. testBar) do not. If we do not offer a functionality to unswizzle methods, they are leaking isolation, i.e. testFoo runs before testBar therefore methods are swizzled, even tough we don't want that.

This is required for #4634 to pass tests.

💚 How did you test it?

I added a unit test to test the unswizzling.

📝 Checklist

You have to check all boxes before merging:

• I added tests to verify the changes.
• No new PII added or SDK only sends newly added PII if sendDefaultPII is enabled.
• I updated the docs if needed.
• I updated the wizard if needed.
• Review from the native team if needed.
• No breaking change or entry added to the changelog.
• No breaking change for hybrid SDKs or communicated to hybrid SDKs.

🔮 Next steps

• Change unswizzling to be wrapped by #if TEST to not be used in production

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[github-actions]

	Messages
📖	Do not forget to update Sentry-docs with your feature once the pull request gets approved.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against afb35fb

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 90.07092% with 14 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 91.232%. Comparing base (f69e4da) to head (afb35fb).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m	84.615%	14 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##              main     #4647       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage   91.140%   91.232%   +0.091%     
=============================================
  Files          621       622        +1     
  Lines        71497     71791      +294     
  Branches     25311     26147      +836     
=============================================
+ Hits         65163     65497      +334     
+ Misses        6239      6194       -45     
- Partials        95       100        +5     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ources/Sentry/include/HybridPublic/SentrySwizzle.h	97.142% <ø> (ø)
Tests/SentryTests/Helper/SentrySwizzleTests.m	93.442% <100.000%> (+1.690%)	⬆️
Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m	90.607% <84.615%> (-4.074%)	⬇️

... and 50 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f69e4da...afb35fb. Read the comment docs.

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	1228.39 ms	1242.94 ms	14.55 ms
Size	22.31 KiB	766.26 KiB	743.95 KiB

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
fcde045	1260.71 ms	1275.00 ms	14.29 ms
b16d18c	1245.60 ms	1250.94 ms	5.34 ms
51ffd8c	1194.60 ms	1215.70 ms	21.10 ms
a9dece3	1224.96 ms	1245.27 ms	20.31 ms
27f970b	1223.48 ms	1239.51 ms	16.03 ms
7bb0873	1226.18 ms	1247.30 ms	21.12 ms
4bdf3dc	1232.56 ms	1252.81 ms	20.25 ms
8aba9c4	1236.94 ms	1248.29 ms	11.35 ms
1734d1b	1200.15 ms	1214.06 ms	13.92 ms
e9fa2b0	1226.22 ms	1248.47 ms	22.24 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
fcde045	20.76 KiB	435.26 KiB	414.50 KiB
b16d18c	20.76 KiB	437.12 KiB	416.36 KiB
51ffd8c	21.58 KiB	418.70 KiB	397.11 KiB
a9dece3	21.58 KiB	546.20 KiB	524.62 KiB
27f970b	21.58 KiB	706.97 KiB	685.39 KiB
7bb0873	22.85 KiB	407.09 KiB	384.24 KiB
4bdf3dc	20.76 KiB	434.94 KiB	414.18 KiB
8aba9c4	21.58 KiB	544.72 KiB	523.14 KiB
1734d1b	21.58 KiB	418.82 KiB	397.23 KiB
e9fa2b0	21.58 KiB	629.61 KiB	608.03 KiB

Previous results on branch: philprime/unswizzling

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
a9a5b1c	1234.60 ms	1254.16 ms	19.56 ms
1f239e8	1233.94 ms	1253.76 ms	19.82 ms
4c753cb	1218.83 ms	1236.60 ms	17.77 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
a9a5b1c	22.32 KiB	761.25 KiB	738.94 KiB
1f239e8	22.30 KiB	760.63 KiB	738.32 KiB
4c753cb	22.31 KiB	766.22 KiB	743.91 KiB

[philipphofmann]

FYI, we already tried that in the past and it always blew up the tests. We instead chose a different approach: We don't unswizzle, but we make sure the operations are NoOps when closing the SDK. I mean we can try again, but we need some good reasons. What drove you to open this PR?

[philprime]

@philipphofmann in #4634 I added unit tests initializing the SentrySDK with an experimental feature flag enabled or disabled. If the SentrySDK is enabled, and swizzling happens, the swizzling remains even after closing and re-enabling the SentrySDK without swizzling.

We could also change this PR to only unswizzle in unit tests, i.e. using #if TEST

[brustolin]

We could also change this PR to only unswizzle in unit tests, i.e. using #if TEST

I agree with this!!

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[philipphofmann]

I added a few comments. I'm fine to give this a shot for the tests, but definitely not in production cause swizzling can have drastic unwanted side effects.

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[philipphofmann]

LGTM, thanks.

[github-actions]

🚨 Detected changes in high risk code 🚨

High-risk code can easily blow up and is hard to test. We had severe bugs in the past. Be extra careful when changing these files, and have an extra careful look at these:

• Sources/Sentry/SentrySwizzle.m

[philprime]

FYI @philipphofmann I had to remove an NSCAssert from the swizzle method, because it is actually valid to call it with key set to NULL. Does not change the implementation, only affects logging.