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 20.00000% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 9.156%. Comparing base (e5c0f86) to head (a4c08ec).
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
Sources/Sentry/SentrySessionTracker.m	0.000%	16 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 (e5c0f86) and HEAD (a4c08ec). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (e5c0f86)	HEAD (a4c08ec)
	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##              main    #5121        +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage   92.763%   9.156%   -83.607%     
=============================================
  Files          687      362       -325     
  Lines        86135    26538     -59597     
  Branches     29983      121     -29862     
=============================================
- Hits         79902     2430     -77472     
- Misses        6139    24108     +17969     
+ Partials        94        0        -94     

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%> (-13.310%)	⬇️
Sources/Sentry/SentrySessionTracker.m	0.000% <0.000%> (-98.980%)	⬇️

... and 675 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 e5c0f86...a4c08ec. 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	1231.18 ms	1249.28 ms	18.09 ms
Size	23.76 KiB	822.00 KiB	798.24 KiB

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
be2977c	1202.51 ms	1221.32 ms	18.81 ms
d413317	1203.27 ms	1215.02 ms	11.75 ms
a4ffa76	1241.51 ms	1255.57 ms	14.06 ms
7207796	1223.80 ms	1235.92 ms	12.11 ms
5e65d2b	1216.08 ms	1236.08 ms	20.00 ms
9454d5d	1230.55 ms	1243.42 ms	12.87 ms
8aec30e	1222.72 ms	1237.73 ms	15.01 ms
7fe37ab	1236.10 ms	1258.83 ms	22.73 ms
6b16a50	1240.27 ms	1258.86 ms	18.59 ms
4d5eb78	1197.86 ms	1215.73 ms	17.88 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
be2977c	22.85 KiB	407.67 KiB	384.83 KiB
d413317	20.76 KiB	420.71 KiB	399.95 KiB
a4ffa76	21.58 KiB	705.65 KiB	684.07 KiB
7207796	21.58 KiB	418.14 KiB	396.56 KiB
5e65d2b	21.58 KiB	616.67 KiB	595.09 KiB
9454d5d	20.76 KiB	436.29 KiB	415.53 KiB
8aec30e	21.58 KiB	616.76 KiB	595.18 KiB
7fe37ab	21.58 KiB	542.28 KiB	520.70 KiB
6b16a50	22.31 KiB	760.66 KiB	738.34 KiB
4d5eb78	21.58 KiB	418.74 KiB	397.16 KiB

Previous results on branch: philprime/issue-5069

Startup times

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

App size

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