Thanks for opening your first pull request! If you haven't yet signed our Contributor License Agreement (CLA), then please do so that we can accept your contribution. A link should appear shortly in this PR if you have not already signed one.

• ❌ The email address for the commit (06e35ef) is not linked to the GitHub account, preventing the EasyCLA check. Consult this Help Article and GitHub Help to resolve. (To view the commit's email address, add .patch at the end of this PR page's URL.) For further assistance with EasyCLA, please submit a support request ticket.

Codecov Report

Merging #190 (fe6f862) into main (c8e79a8) will increase coverage by 2.81%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head fe6f862 differs from pull request most recent head 06e35ef. Consider uploading reports for the commit 06e35ef to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #190      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     28.60%   31.41%   +2.81%     
+ Complexity      472      443      -29     
============================================
  Files            47       43       -4     
  Lines          1755     1598     -157     
============================================
  Hits            502      502              
+ Misses         1253     1096     -157     

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c8e79a8...06e35ef. Read the comment docs.

/cc @beniamin @brettmc

We discussed this at SIG just now. Somebody pointed out this part of the spec which I couldn't find earlier.

It's clear about how http server spans should be named, and also client spans. We're not quite getting either of them right at the moment, it seems :(

server spans: {method} {optional route name}
client spans: {method} (and MUST NOT use the URI).

Based on that this PR doesn't meet the spec requirements. However, we'd love it if this PR or a new one could bring http span names into alignment with the spec.

From what you say I understand that the only issue with the pull request right now is that it adds the hostname for client request spans.

From what you say I understand that the only issue with the pull request right now is that it adds the hostname for client request spans.

I think also that it adds "unknown route", which the spec says to leave out if not known.