Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
feat(Angular): Add URL Parameterization of Transaction Names #5416
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(Angular): Add URL Parameterization of Transaction Names #5416
Changes from 11 commits
17190a0
f9ab851
634e906
190963d
3ce61c8
1395a34
23242aa
ca02d49
9d5b14e
856ba22
be90bdc
35b9eca
195fe33
ffaf7f1
a8b44b8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't understand why this is a tree and not just a chain of route snapshots. A tree would imply that there are multiple routes active (leaf nodes of the tree), can that be the case? Multi-layouts? Do we consider those as "navigation events" where we want to start transactions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So my best guess is that we're not going to encounter multi-child routes, which is why for the new approach we're essentially treating the route snapshot as a chain instead of a tree. My assumption: The
ResolveEnd
event holds the router state of the newly resolved (and soon to be activated) route and not the entire router state.If we get reports of wrong transaction names, we can always revisit this strategy. Although I'd argue that in this case we'd need to rethink how we treat such navigations (i.e. how the transaction name should look like then).