api docs: improve wording of ext_proc ImmediateResponse.Details field#19813
Merged
ggreenway merged 1 commit intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom Feb 4, 2022
Merged
api docs: improve wording of ext_proc ImmediateResponse.Details field#19813ggreenway merged 1 commit intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom
ggreenway merged 1 commit intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom
Conversation
|
Hi @chet, welcome and thank you for your contribution. We will try to review your Pull Request as quickly as possible. In the meantime, please take a look at the contribution guidelines if you have not done so already. |
|
CC @envoyproxy/api-shepherds: Your approval is needed for changes made to |
Signed-off-by: Chet Nichols III <chet@apple.com> Commit Message: api docs: improve wording of ext_proc ImmediateResponse.Details field Addition Details: I had been trying to figure out a good way to provide more internally-derived feedback from an *ext_proc* implementation to *envoy* (without needing to do things like set response headers or rely on a separate log file), and was led to the discovery that the `ImmediateResponse.Details` field actually populates `%RESPONSE_CODE_DETAILS%` for use in access logging. Due to how much better this discovery made my life, I am hoping it will make other people's lives better as well. Risk Level: Low Testing: Leveraged existing unit tests Docs Changes: Yes Release Notes: None Platform Specific Features: None Signed-off-by: Chet Nichols III <chet@apple.com>
chet
force-pushed
the
docs_ext_proc_details_field
branch
from
51da0d8 to
3d49fa8
Compare
lizan
approved these changes
Feb 4, 2022
joshperry
pushed a commit
to joshperry/envoy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 13, 2022
…envoyproxy#19813) I had been trying to figure out a good way to provide more internally-derived feedback from an *ext_proc* implementation to *envoy* (without needing to do things like set response headers or rely on a separate log file), and was led to the discovery that the `ImmediateResponse.Details` field actually populates `%RESPONSE_CODE_DETAILS%` for use in access logging. Due to how much better this discovery made my life, I am hoping it will make other people's lives better as well. Signed-off-by: Chet Nichols III <chet@apple.com> Signed-off-by: Josh Perry <josh.perry@mx.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Signed-off-by: Chet Nichols III chet@apple.com
Commit Message: api docs: improve wording of ext_proc ImmediateResponse.Details field
Addition Details: I had been trying to figure out a good way to provide more internally-derived feedback from an ext_proc implementation to envoy (without needing to do things like set response headers or rely on a separate log file), and was led to the discovery that the
ImmediateResponse.Detailsfield actually populates%RESPONSE_CODE_DETAILS%for use in access logging.Due to how much better this discovery made my life, I am hoping it will make other people's lives better as well.
Risk Level: Low
Testing: Leveraged existing unit tests
Docs Changes: Yes
Release Notes: None
Platform Specific Features: None