Add transaction back to DSC specification

[lforst]

Resolves#634

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated
develop	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Jul 8, 2022 at 0:57AM (UTC)

[Lms24]

I think this is a good general description for "good quality" transaction names.

Wondering if the dependence for transaction being added to the DSC on the transaction source should be a hard requirement instead of a suggestion. But as long as Relay doesn't make sampling decisions based on the source (which IIRC and according to the spec) I think we can leave this open to SDK implementors.

[lforst]

Wondering if the dependence for transaction being added to the DSC on the transaction source should be a hard requirement instead of a suggestion. But as long as Relay doesn't make sampling decisions based on the source (which IIRC and according to the spec) I think we can leave this open to SDK implementors.

Good input!

The reason I wrote it like this and also didn't make it a hard-requirement to have the transaction on the DSC based on transaction source, is because not all SDKs have the problem of "low quality transaction names" like the JS SDK with URLs and additionally not all SDKs will have to provide a transaction source until relay makes it required.
In my head, transaction source and inclusion of TXs on DSC are two different concepts, but the one can support the decision making of the other one.

[Lms24]

Yeah, makes sense to leave it as is for now