fix!: span name on instrumentation-xml-http-request

[jufab]

Which problem is this PR solving?

Fix span name on package instrumentation-xml-http-request after pull #3603

Short description of the changes

Remove HTTP on span name

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Unit test

Checklist:

• Followed the style guidelines of this project
• Unit tests have been added
• Documentation has been updated

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3672 (077a560) into main (89a984a) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 077a560 differs from pull request most recent head 9d2335a. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9d2335a to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3672   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.71%   93.71%           
=======================================
  Files         277      277           
  Lines        8454     8454           
  Branches     1761     1761           
=======================================
  Hits         7923     7923           
  Misses        531      531           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...emetry-instrumentation-xml-http-request/src/xhr.ts	97.59% <100.00%> (ø)

[dyladan]

Hmm I really don't want to but I think in order to make this change we should bump the version to 2.0 or we should simply document it as a change to be made for 2.0. A minor release for a 1.x stable component shouldn't have a breaking change.

[dyladan]

@open-telemetry/javascript-maintainers any thoughts on that?

[Flarna]

Instrumentations are still experimental therefore such a change should not require a major bump. In 0.x range a minor should be fine.

[Flarna]

The corresponding PR on node.js HTTP instrumentation #3603 was marked as feat not fix.
Personally I think feat is better because it just follows a spec change so it was not wrong in the past.

[dyladan]

I agree this is not a bug fix. It can be even considered breaking since span names are used as keys for query in some backends. Since this instrumentation is not stable yet that isn't a problem. I think feat!: should be acceptable

[jufab]

Should I rename everything to feat and edit the changelog?
I used fix because there is already a PR on this subject. Just this lib was missing.

[legendecas]

I believe it is fine for us to introduce breaking changes in the experimental instrumentation packages.

[dyladan]

Should I rename everything to feat and edit the changelog?
I used fix because there is already a PR on this subject. Just this lib was missing.

I think fix is fine as long as you put it in the breaking section. I don't think it needs to show up in both sections of the changelog though. Right now you have it in both breaking and bug.