Language inconsistency in traffic metrics

[SirNexus]

Talking about here

The language here is inconsistent with the rest of the README. A direction is described as the flow of traffic from resource to edge resource. However, the to keyword here was being used to described flow from all resources to the target resource.

Is this intended, or an oversight?

I propose:

"Finally, resource can be as general or specific as desired. For example, with a direction of to and an empty resource, the metrics are observed at the foo-775b9cbd88-ntxsl pod and represent all traffic to other resources."

[grampelberg]

Hmmm, how about:

Finally, resource can be as general or specific as desired. For example, with a direction of to and an empty resource, the metrics are for all the traffic received by the foo-775b9cbd88-ntxsl pod.

[SirNexus]

I like the "to" phrasing, because it emphasizes the intent of using the to keyword in the edge. But I understand that "other resources" is a big vague.

However, if we change the wording to "received", perhaps don't italicize? I think the reason to is italicized is to emphasize that the keyword to in the example represents traffic to a particular resource.

[grampelberg]

Yeah, I was finding that reusing to the confusing bit for me. The gist is that if edge doesn't actually point to anything, it is always the traffic being received by resource.

[SirNexus]

I am alright with your suggestion. Would you like me to open a PR? Do you still think the italics are warranted?

[grampelberg]

A PR would be awesome! I think you're right, the italics aren't required.