Andrea Leopardi

@josevalim yeah that's the complexity I want to avoid, as I don't think it's justified for the `recv_response` *utility*. We don't store anything now because if you receive a complete...

Complexity as we don't need it 🙃 Also, can you describe a use case where I have `ref1` and `ref2` in flight, and then I call `recv_response(ref1)`. I never call...

@hunterboerner this might be a problem with the `:domain` setting (see https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-elixir/commit/c4b2facee4b7c2235fd132b8513c0c9f97a947ac), but I see that it's just `[:elixir]` above. @mtrudel any idea what's going on here, if it's something...

@hunterboerner could you give the newly-releases Sentry 10.6.2 + Bandit >= 1.5.5 a try? I think they should fix this up.

Haven't heard back on this so assuming that this has been fixed. Please feel free to comment and we'll reopen if this is still an issue 🙃

Interesting, yeah this is not supposed to happen. The Logger backend and handler use the same code to send exceptions (passing `result: :none` to `Sentry.capture_exception/2`, so both use the sender...

> These were harder to figure out What do you mean? Can we catalogue them? Also, did you use `--repeat-until-failure` in CI or locally? CI tends to be significantly slower.

@martosaur that's interesting, thanks for the link! I personally don't think we should add another dependency to Sentry considering this is functionally working.

> This stems from my opinion that the current :declare, :bindings, and :after_connect options are not clear Can you help clarify them then? 🙃 > One common misperception I've seen...

> No. This is about broadway_rabbitmq. The place where broadway_rabbitmq asks for configuration options to be provided is misleading. The options are misleading because they are included in pipeline configuration...