Codecov Report

Merging #1237 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master    #1237   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     37.05%   37.05%           
  Complexity     3759     3759           
=========================================
  Files           136      136           
  Lines         11462    11462           
=========================================
  Hits           4247     4247           
  Misses         7215     7215

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 7fc5a63...ba71377. Read the comment docs.

Thanks a lot for your contribution, @BaranekD!

This one is a bit hard to decide on, because we definitely see legitimate error reports with the exception and URL not set. In the end, those fields being not set means something went really wrong, but not necessarily that the message is spam, since the data may still have been successfully recovered. Of course, lacking a backtrace means it's almost impossible for us to figure out where did that error originate, and fix it.

I'd say the most clear case here is when loading the exception data from the session fails, as that might indeed indicate that this could be automated in any way, for whatever purpose. But if loading the data succeeds, I think then we should send the report, even if parts of it are missing.

Also, bear in mind that if someone really wants to use this to spam, it would be simple to circumvent your check by manually inducing an error (e.g. page not found).

I understand the issue but I agree that this might not be the best solution. What kind of reports are you getting that you want to prevent?