Add another actuator endpoint in example of exposing gateway actuator endpoint

[mygordienko]

Question

Actuator endpoints priority against custom routes should be documented. For instance, if I have a route for /** configured in my application

- id: frontend
      uri: ${frontend.base.url}
      predicates:
        - Path=/**

and have

management.endpoints.web.exposure.include=gateway,health

I will get actuator health report on /actiator/health as I want, but it is not so obvious when reading https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-gateway/reference/html/#_actuator_api.
Actually I am not sure if this is expected behavior (I mean that I am getting actuator response and not my UI response for /**)

So could you please explicitly mention this aspect in documentation?

[spencergibb]

I'm not sure what you are asking for. management.endpoints.web.exposure.include is a boot property. Do you mean update the example of that property? If so, that would be fine.

[mygordienko]

My point is that the documentation of the gateway should explicitly explain whether actuator endpoints are affected by route definitions or not. For instance, if I have actuator base path configured to be '/' and in the same time I have a route for '/**'. What happen? Am I supposed to not use actuator basepath '/' for gateway? Or it is absolutely fine and those two things (actuator endpoints and routes) do not hinder each other.

[spencergibb]

So a note or warning about root routes?

[mygordienko]

Yes, something like that.