Hi @SergeyKleyman ,

I can start working on this one. I might need some guidance though.
I'm assuming that the implementation should be identical to what's written in the docs (https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/apm/agent/nodejs/current/configuration.html#capture-body).

Here are the links to all other Elastic APM agents that already have this feature implemented (I've taken them from Elastic APM Backend Agent Config Comparison spreadsheet)

• Java - https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/apm/agent/java/current/config-http.html#config-capture-body
• Node.js - https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/apm/agent/nodejs/current/configuration.html#capture-body
• Ruby - https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/apm/agent/ruby/current/configuration.html#config-capture-body
• Python - https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/apm/agent/python/current/configuration.html#config-capture-body

I would recommend to start with the requirements for this feature by going over other agents' documentation for this feature to make sure requirements for .NET agent align with the other agents.

@katzdan it's totally fine if you start with this, just some thoughts:

Our ASP.NET Core part is more advanced, and the ASP.NET Full Framework project is not yet released. So #213 is maybe a better candidate to make it into production sooner - also writing tests is I think simpler for that case - although for Full Framework we already also have a nice setup, but it maybe needs more learning, the ASP.NET Core tests are simpler in-process tests.

I'll start with #213 then. Thanks.

Can you consider including redacting requirement? I often have business requirements to ensure sensitive data such as credit cards are not accidentally logged.

This could be as simple as some kind of regex replacement...

Can you consider including redacting requirement? I often have business requirements to ensure sensitive data such as credit cards are not accidentally logged.

This could be as simple as some kind of regex replacement...

@andrewharry thanks for the input.

That'd be covered by #300. We already have an ongoing PR by @katzdan. I'd say in the first round we won't do it - just to reduce the scope and make sure that at least some part of the feature lands soon. In #300 we'll come back to it.