Skip to content
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

Disconnect between server/client(.socket).port and network.transport (TCP/UDP) #250

Closed
trask opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #289
Closed

Disconnect between server/client(.socket).port and network.transport (TCP/UDP) #250

trask opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #289
Assignees

Comments

@trask
Copy link
Member

trask commented Aug 14, 2023

It seems that the network.transport attribute was moved to trace-specific attributes, and the port is ambiguous if we don't know whether it was UDP or TCP

Originally posted by @Oberon00 in #244 (comment)

@trask
Copy link
Member Author

trask commented Aug 14, 2023

It seems that the network.transport attribute was moved to trace-specific attributes

I sent #256 for this

and the port is ambiguous if we don't know whether it was UDP or TCP

@Oberon00 can you clarify if you think there's a specific change you're thinking that we should make related to this? thx

@trask
Copy link
Member Author

trask commented Aug 28, 2023

@Oberon00 i'm not clear about this part

and the port is ambiguous if we don't know whether it was UDP or TCP

and want to make sure we're not missing something that's needed for HTTP stability, thx!

@Oberon00 Oberon00 changed the title It seems that the network.transport attribute was moved to trace-specific attributes, and the port is ambiguous if we don't know whether it was UDP or TCP Disconnect between server/client(.socket).port and network.transport (TCP/UDP) Aug 29, 2023
@Oberon00
Copy link
Member

Oberon00 commented Aug 29, 2023

The issue I mentioned on the linked comment is resolved with your #256. Thank you! I can make another suggestion on the port specification.

EDIT: I created PR #289. We can close this issue by merging that, but even if we decide not to merge, the issue is sufficiently addressed and can be closed after we decide that.

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 a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants