chore: Auto-request mobile team review on public API changes

[antonis]

📜 Description

Adds CODEOWNERS rules for the committed binary-compatibility-validator baselines of the public SDK API surface

💡 Motivation and Context

Public API changes in the mobile SDKs should be reviewed by another mobile SDK team member for cross-SDK consistency.

💚 How did you test it?

Manually

📝 Checklist

• I added GH Issue ID & Linear ID
• 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

[sentry]

📲 Install Builds

Android

🔗 App Name	App ID	Version	Configuration
SDK Size	io.sentry.tests.size	8.46.0 (1)	release

⚙️ sentry-android Build Distribution Settings

[github-actions]

Performance metrics 🚀

	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
Startup time	343.76 ms	419.92 ms	76.16 ms
Size	0 B	0 B	0 B

Baseline results on branch: main

Startup times

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
1edbdfa	364.77 ms	450.29 ms	85.52 ms
a416a65	333.78 ms	410.37 ms	76.59 ms
d15471f	302.62 ms	353.84 ms	51.22 ms
22f4345	314.79 ms	375.02 ms	60.23 ms
6b019b7	343.31 ms	417.23 ms	73.91 ms
22f4345	312.78 ms	347.40 ms	34.62 ms
d217708	411.22 ms	430.86 ms	19.63 ms
319f256	315.96 ms	372.96 ms	57.00 ms
e2dce0b	308.96 ms	360.10 ms	51.14 ms
8558cac	306.16 ms	355.24 ms	49.09 ms

App size

Revision	Plain	With Sentry	Diff
1edbdfa	1.58 MiB	2.20 MiB	635.34 KiB
a416a65	1.58 MiB	2.12 MiB	555.26 KiB
d15471f	1.58 MiB	2.13 MiB	559.54 KiB
22f4345	1.58 MiB	2.29 MiB	719.83 KiB
6b019b7	0 B	0 B	0 B
22f4345	1.58 MiB	2.29 MiB	719.83 KiB
d217708	1.58 MiB	2.10 MiB	532.97 KiB
319f256	1.58 MiB	2.19 MiB	619.79 KiB
e2dce0b	0 B	0 B	0 B
8558cac	0 B	0 B	0 B

[runningcode]

While in theory this does what you want it to do, in practice the .api file includes things that are marked as @Internal and therefore this will be noisy.

[antonis]

Good point @runningcode 👍

My understanding is that having the internal annotation is intentional and desired and removing them is not an option.

An alternative would be to generate a new public-only surface file and add codeowners to just that. We can use the nonPublicMarkers for that.

The existing per-module .api files stay as-is and the extra cost should be negligible since it's a second pass over already-compiled bytecode.

Wdyt?

[runningcode]

@antonis Thanks for the PR. We discussed it as a team in our sync.
While the suggestion to use nonPublicMarkers is a good one we also have classes that are marked as @ApiStatus.Internal but are used as the interface to our other SDKs such as react native/flutter/etc. We can't remove @ApiStatus.Internal with nonPublicMarkers without also removing those and then it would be easy to break the interface to those APIs. There's probably a solution to that but isn't a priority right now.
So for now we'd like to keep this simple and just keep the suggestion to add the mobile team review as part of the PR template.

Thanks again!

[antonis]

Thank you for checking @runningcode 🙇 Sounds good 👍