fix(session-tracker): add session start for SDK start after didBecomeActive

[philprime]

📜 Description

On SDK startup we check if the app is already in foreground and manually trigger the logic of didBecomeActive.

💡 Motivation and Context

Currently the session tracker expects the didBecomeActive notification from the application life cycle after the SDK start. If we start the SDK after the app is opened, e.g. after fetching a remote config and initializing the SDK again, or if the user is asked for consent first, session tracking will not start until the app is in background for a while again.

Please see this comment for further details.

Closes #5069

💚 How did you test it?

• Added unit tests
• Started the sample "SessionReplay-CameraTest", set a breakpoint at SentryHub.startSession and tapped on toggle "Session Replay Enabled" as it closes and restarts the SDK. Before the changes the breakpoint would not be hit on toggles, but after it toggles everytime

📝 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.

[philipphofmann]

@philprime it would be great if we could first have a PR to only fix the problem that the SDK doesn't start a session when it's started after didBecomeActive to keep the change small. I think that's a standalone improvement that has nothing to do with SR.

[philprime]

@philipphofmann I agree, it seems like somehow other changes leaked into the PR during rebasing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 17.85714% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 9.183%. Comparing base (f96ab19) to head (04962a4).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
Sources/Sentry/SentrySessionTracker.m	0.000%	19 Missing ⚠️
Sources/Sentry/SentryNSNotificationCenterWrapper.m	0.000%	2 Missing ⚠️
Sources/Sentry/SentryUIApplication.m	60.000%	2 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (f96ab19) and HEAD (04962a4). Click for more details.

HEAD has 3 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (f96ab19)	HEAD (04962a4)
	4	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##              main    #5121        +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage   92.903%   9.183%   -83.721%     
=============================================
  Files          691      362       -329     
  Lines        86707    26548     -60159     
  Branches     31235      121     -31114     
=============================================
- Hits         80554     2438     -78116     
- Misses        6054    24110     +18056     
+ Partials        99        0        -99     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
Sources/Sentry/SentryDependencyContainer.m	50.375% <100.000%> (-39.562%)	⬇️
Sources/Sentry/SentryNSNotificationCenterWrapper.m	0.000% <0.000%> (-100.000%)	⬇️
Sources/Sentry/SentryUIApplication.m	36.690% <60.000%> (-20.532%)	⬇️
Sources/Sentry/SentrySessionTracker.m	0.000% <0.000%> (-98.980%)	⬇️

... and 678 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 f96ab19...04962a4. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	1221.04 ms	1249.15 ms	28.11 ms
Size	23.76 KiB	831.53 KiB	807.77 KiB

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
de033da	1216.91 ms	1222.84 ms	5.92 ms
fc350a4	1240.47 ms	1263.45 ms	22.98 ms
7db7c42	1221.73 ms	1249.59 ms	27.86 ms
0418702	1226.94 ms	1246.08 ms	19.14 ms
156e771	1228.06 ms	1242.64 ms	14.58 ms
f1c36e0	1215.18 ms	1223.62 ms	8.43 ms
984eb2d	1220.62 ms	1235.24 ms	14.62 ms
2124551	1231.78 ms	1264.94 ms	33.16 ms
9f0d9e0	1206.55 ms	1219.41 ms	12.86 ms
b9b0f0a	1235.61 ms	1237.40 ms	1.79 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
de033da	21.58 KiB	418.15 KiB	396.57 KiB
fc350a4	21.90 KiB	708.34 KiB	686.44 KiB
7db7c42	22.31 KiB	775.27 KiB	752.95 KiB
0418702	21.58 KiB	704.20 KiB	682.62 KiB
156e771	20.76 KiB	419.70 KiB	398.94 KiB
f1c36e0	21.58 KiB	670.40 KiB	648.81 KiB
984eb2d	20.76 KiB	425.77 KiB	405.01 KiB
2124551	22.85 KiB	411.69 KiB	388.84 KiB
9f0d9e0	21.58 KiB	424.28 KiB	402.70 KiB
b9b0f0a	20.76 KiB	434.93 KiB	414.17 KiB

Previous results on branch: philprime/issue-5069

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
d7a0706	1228.17 ms	1246.63 ms	18.47 ms
fe0a171	1206.90 ms	1235.47 ms	28.57 ms
ff955bc	1219.57 ms	1251.20 ms	31.63 ms
4deddc5	1220.81 ms	1234.41 ms	13.60 ms
9c7c623	1231.18 ms	1249.28 ms	18.09 ms
7e28ca5	1223.96 ms	1248.59 ms	24.63 ms
5be643e	1217.51 ms	1246.15 ms	28.64 ms
7a1e241	1214.75 ms	1242.17 ms	27.42 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
d7a0706	23.76 KiB	821.96 KiB	798.21 KiB
fe0a171	23.76 KiB	822.09 KiB	798.33 KiB
ff955bc	23.76 KiB	870.40 KiB	846.63 KiB
4deddc5	23.76 KiB	822.08 KiB	798.32 KiB
9c7c623	23.76 KiB	822.00 KiB	798.24 KiB
7e28ca5	23.76 KiB	870.39 KiB	846.63 KiB
5be643e	23.76 KiB	820.06 KiB	796.30 KiB
7a1e241	23.76 KiB	820.07 KiB	796.31 KiB

[philipphofmann]

There are a few tests failing. Either something is wrong with the test setup or the session logic is broken.

[philprime]

After adding application state simulation to the unit tests, they fail with and without the changes of this PR. I'll will need to look into it with @philipphofmann to see if the tests are actually correct.

[philprime]

After a discussion the existing tests are valid, therefore indicating that my changes in this PR are not valid yet.

[philprime]

@philipphofmann do we have any documentation on what the sequence of events should be in this case? I assumed the following but tests are failing. Now before I get back to the implementation I need to confirm this is expected.