Add trace-propagation-targets to unified API options

[lforst]

Adds documentation for the discussed tracePropagationTargets option. More context: DACI (internal)

Related to changes in the JavaScript SDK: getsentry/sentry-javascript#5521

[vercel]

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

Name	Status	Preview	Updated
sentry-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Aug 5, 2022 at 8:23AM (UTC)

[Lms24]

LGTM so far. Just wondering if we should add a small example (similar to the one in the dev spec maybe?) to show what to specify here? The example could show a mix of regex and string and just a few URLs that would (not) match

[lforst]

LGTM so far. Just wondering if we should add a small example (similar to the one in the dev spec maybe?) to show what to specify here? The example could show a mix of regex and string and just a few URLs that would (not) match

@Lms24 How would you go about putting an example here? I thought about it a bit but we can't really rely on JS syntax on this page because it is more or less generic to all SDKs so we'd have to put different examples for all the different SDKs here. Do we want to do that?

[Lms24]

Good point. So, I took another look at the file and it seems like there are some options (e.g. in the deprecated section) with code examples. However, I'm realizing that this isn't simple for our case because ultimately this option should make it to all SDKs. I think we can do two things:

1. Within the tracePropagationTargets section, we use another component to show the code example in the specific language (I think PlatformSection is the one we use for that?). When SDKs add the new property, they'd have to add an example in their language
2. We don't specify an example and just improve the description a little. We should explain that the list can have a mix of strings and regexes and that for strings a "contains" condition is enough (i.e. it doesn't have to be an exact match).

I'd vote for 2 as it seems the more straight forward way

[Lms24]

LGTM, thanks for addressing my feedback!