Skip to content

Conversation

@sfc-gh-rvijayan
Copy link
Collaborator

Commit Message:
Additional Description:
Risk Level:
Testing:
Docs Changes:
Release Notes:
Platform Specific Features:
[Optional Runtime guard:]
[Optional Fixes #Issue]
[Optional Fixes commit #PR or SHA]
[Optional Deprecated:]
[Optional API Considerations:]

COUNTER(downstream_rq_tx_reset) \
COUNTER(downstream_rq_max_duration_reached) \
COUNTER(downstream_rq_ws_on_non_ws_route) \
COUNTER(via_upstream_downstream_rq_1xx) \
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: I think downstream_rq_via_upstream is more intuitive.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

True, it was my first preference too. The advantage of ending the name with downstream_rq is that the tag extractor can use the existing regexes here so we do not need to add a new one for matching via_upstream

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants