[FIX][ISSUE-370] update consumer rules

[buongarzoni]

Description of the change

Remove global ProGuard option from consumer rules

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Maintenance
• New release

Related issues

• Fix -renamesourcefileattribute should not be in library consumer ProGuard rules #370

Checklists

Development

• Lint rules pass locally
• The code changed/added as part of this pull request has been covered with tests
• All tests related to the changed code pass in development

Code review

• This pull request has a descriptive title and information useful to a reviewer. There may be a screenshot or screencast attached
• "Ready for review" label attached to the PR and reviewers assigned
• Issue from task tracker has a link to this pull request
• Changes have been reviewed by at least one other engineer

[buongarzoni]

@claude review

[claude]

LGTM — straightforward ProGuard consumer rules cleanup.

Extended reasoning...

Overview

This PR modifies two ProGuard rules files:

• rollbar-android/proguard-rules.pro: removes the -renamesourcefileattribute SourceFile directive (which is a global ProGuard/R8 option not appropriate for library consumer rules), uncomments -keepattributes SourceFile,LineNumberTable, and adds an explanatory comment directing app developers to add the rename rule to their own app's proguard-rules.pro if desired.
• examples/rollbar-android/proguard-rules.pro: removes commented-out template lines for the same options.

Security risks

None. ProGuard rules govern build-time obfuscation/shrinking and don't affect runtime authentication, data handling, or any security-sensitive logic.

Level of scrutiny

Low scrutiny is appropriate. This is a build-configuration fix addressing a known ProGuard/R8 best practice — global options like -renamesourcefileattribute should not be embedded in library consumer rules because they would silently impact every app consuming the library. The fix is mechanical, the rationale is clearly documented inline, and the explanatory NOTE for downstream consumers is helpful.

Other factors

Bug hunting found no issues. The change is small (two files), self-contained, and aligns with the linked issue #370. No code logic, no API surface, no tests affected.

[brianr]

@codex please review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Bravo.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".