[skill-drift] fix(sentry-flutter-sdk): document enableNewTraceOnNavigation default change to false

[github-actions]

SDK Changes

The following PR was merged to getsentry/sentry-dart that affects the sentry-flutter-sdk skill:

• enh(navigator-observer): make new trace id on navigation opt-in instead of opt-out sentry-dart#3657 — enh(navigator-observer): make new trace id on navigation opt-in instead of opt-out (enh(navigator-observer): make new trace id on navigation opt-in instead of opt-out sentry-dart#3657)

Changes Made

• Added enableNewTraceOnNavigation: false with explanatory comment to the SentryNavigatorObserver code example in references/tracing.md, documenting the new default and noting the change from true → false in sentry_flutter 9.19.0
• Added a troubleshooting row explaining that users who want new traces on navigation must now explicitly set enableNewTraceOnNavigation: true

Verified Against

• SDK source: getsentry/sentry-dart@master (PR #3657)
• The diff shows enableNewTraceOnNavigation = false as the new default in SentryNavigatorObserver constructor

Note

🔒 Integrity filter blocked 11 items

The following items were blocked because they don't meet the GitHub integrity level.

• #282 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #7800 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #1168 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #893 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #4793 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #6140 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #6139 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #6138 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #2940 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #2938 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #83 list_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".

To allow these resources, lower min-integrity in your GitHub frontmatter:

tools:
  github:
    min-integrity: approved  # merged | approved | unapproved | none

Generated by SDK Skill Drift Detector · ● 906.2K · ◷

• expires on May 11, 2026, 1:23 PM UTC

[sentry]

Bug: The troubleshooting guide for enableNewTraceOnNavigation has a misleading problem description that contradicts the suggested solution.
_{Severity: LOW}

Suggested Fix

Update the problem description in the troubleshooting table to be more accurate. Instead of "Traces not being connected across navigations", use a clearer phrase like "Navigation events not generating separate traces" or "All navigation appearing in a single trace" to accurately reflect the issue that setting enableNewTraceOnNavigation: true resolves.

Prompt for AI Agent

Review the code at the location below. A potential bug has been identified by an AI
agent. Verify if this is a real issue. If it is, propose a fix; if not, explain why it's
not valid.

Location: skills/sentry-flutter-sdk/references/tracing.md#L472

Potential issue: The troubleshooting documentation for `enableNewTraceOnNavigation`
contains a logical contradiction. The problem is described as "Traces not being
connected across navigations", which implies traces are fragmented. However, the
suggested solution is to set `enableNewTraceOnNavigation: true`, which is the setting
that explicitly creates a new, separate trace for each navigation event. This action
would exacerbate, not fix, the problem as described. While the intended audience (users
upgrading from a previous version) might understand the goal, the problem description is
misleading and will likely confuse users unfamiliar with the history of this setting.

_{Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.}