non-interactive page, form submit

Not asking to change anything, but this is going to be interesting, since we aren't really going to see the method for the form handling events given that EditForm is the one registering them. It's always going to show up as ...HandleSubmit, but I don't see how we can do better

Sorry, I know this is late, but one suggestion I missed before was to have Blazor update the DisplayName of the enclosing SignalR activity. It seems like this would avoid creating extra top-level traces while preserving the unique naming you were hoping for. For example instead of doing (conceptually):

Activity signalRActivity = Activity.Current;
Activity.Current = null;
Activity blazorActivity = ComponentActivitySource.StartActivity(...);
activity.DisplayName = $"Route {route ?? "[unknown path]"} -> {componentType ?? "[unknown component]"}";
DoBlazorWork();
activity.Stop();
Activity.Current = signalRActivity;

You could do:

Activity signalRActivity = Activity.Current;
signalRActivity.DisplayName = $"Blazor Route {route ?? "[unknown path]"} -> {componentType ?? "[unknown component]"}";
DoBlazorWork();

Thoughts?

@

Sorry, I know this is late, but one suggestion I missed before was to have Blazor update the DisplayName of the enclosing SignalR activity. It seems like this would avoid creating extra top-level traces while preserving the unique naming you were hoping for. For example instead of doing (conceptually):

Activity signalRActivity = Activity.Current;
Activity.Current = null;
Activity blazorActivity = ComponentActivitySource.StartActivity(...);
activity.DisplayName = $"Route {route ?? "[unknown path]"} -> {componentType ?? "[unknown component]"}";
DoBlazorWork();
activity.Stop();
Activity.Current = signalRActivity;

You could do:

Activity signalRActivity = Activity.Current;
signalRActivity.DisplayName = $"Blazor Route {route ?? "[unknown path]"} -> {componentType ?? "[unknown component]"}";
DoBlazorWork();

Thoughts?

I don't think that would actually work. The reason being that a circuit expands more than one SignalR connection (for example when a client gets disconnected and reconnects). I realize now we might not be handling that scenario entirely correcty.

@@pavelsavara, this change will be considered for inclusion in the blog post for the release it'll ship in. Nice work!

Please ensure that the original comment in this thread contains a clear explanation of what the change does, why it's important (what problem does it solve?), and, if relevant, include things like code samples and/or performance numbers.

This content may not be exactly what goes into the blog post, but it will help the team putting together the announcement.

Thanks!