rads-1996
rads-1996
Can I please be assigned this issue.
> Thanks for addressing my comments. I don't have anything else to add, but I can't sign off either. No problem. Thanks a lot for the comments, they were very...
The certificates have been regenerated through another PR. Once that gets merged, the tests should pass on this PR.
> It looks like the behavior here is not configurable. Given that the spec is in development, I think we should allow for users to disable or modify this in...
@pichlermarc, @dyladan for now I have implemented the logic, which allows users to add values but the default set provided in the specification will always be redacted. Please take a...
@dyladan Apologies, I completely forgot about the comment for not rebasing. For this change, I did a rebase.
> I think the behavior of `redactedQueryParams` is potentially confusing > > * `redactedQueryParams == undefined` -> use default list (good) > * `redactedQueryParams == ['my-attr']` -> use list passed...
I will be investigating this. Could I please be assigned this issue.
@lzchen the new changes are only checking the if successful items are correctly being captured in AppInsights. Below is a screenshot of the same -  Additionally, I have verified...
@lzchen I discovered that the `envelope names` and the `base_type` to determine the type of telemetry are a bit different. The envelope names are usually of the format - "Microsoft.ApplicationInsights.RemoteDependency",...