fix: Do not include stacktrace into Timber message

[romtsn]

📜 Description

• Overridden all Timber.Tree methods to have full control over the log message
• Supply formatted and params fields if the log-call was made with args
• Do not include stackframes into a message

How this looks now:

Grouping seems to work as well:

💡 Motivation and Context

Closes #1177

💚 How did you test it?

📝 Checklist

• I reviewed the submitted code
• I added tests to verify the changes
• I updated the docs if needed
• No breaking changes

🔮 Next steps

1. We can't access tag from Timber because it's package-private, so I had to drop it.
2. Since we set the Message ourselves, the stacktraces are not reported as breadcrumbs anymore (previously, Timber default implementation would put a stacktrace into a message variable and we would record a breadcrumb with the exception) - should we still do this?

[marandaneto]

Since we set the Message ourselves, the stacktraces are not reported as breadcrumbs anymore (previously, Timber default implementation would put a stacktrace into a message variable and we would record a breadcrumb with the exception) - should we still do this?

No, the breadcrumb should not care about the stack trace, if there's an exception, we'll capture an event anyway.

[marandaneto]

We can't access tag from Timber because it's package-private, so I had to drop it.

That's a breaking change but not sure if it makes any difference or if somebody uses it as a filter on the Issues page.
@bruno-garcia ?

[romtsn]

That's a breaking change but not sure if it makes any difference or if somebody uses it as a filter on the Issues page. @bruno-garcia ?

Yeah, timber isn't great when it comes to setting tags, because you need to invoke a separate method Timber.tag before calling the actual logging function. For DebugTree it infers the tag from a class name, in theory we could do the same if desired.

[bruno-garcia]

❤️

[romtsn]

So the way to go with Timber I think we just do not support tags for now, if we get complaints/issues we can offer a reflection-based support (or automatically infer the tag from the classname). How does that sound?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1898 (2df5bb6) into main (3cd777f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #1898   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     75.42%   75.42%           
  Complexity     2244     2244           
=========================================
  Files           225      225           
  Lines          8026     8026           
  Branches        852      852           
=========================================
  Hits           6054     6054           
  Misses         1562     1562           
  Partials        410      410           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3cd777f...2df5bb6. Read the comment docs.

[romtsn]

We could also mention it in the docs and link to an issue on github to vote for

[marandaneto]

We could also mention it in the docs and link to an issue on github to vote for

Let's do this, but let's also add the missing tags feat. on the changelog entry.

[romtsn]

Added a breaking change note on the changelog and linked it to a gh issue. Merging it when it's green