Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(logging): inconsistency between go kit Logger and spanLogger #211

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 30, 2021

Conversation

Reasno
Copy link
Member

@Reasno Reasno commented Oct 29, 2021

Only log.Valuer passed via log.With are treated as dynamic argument in go kit log. The change makes spanLogger consistent with go kit.

@Reasno Reasno requested a review from GGXXLL October 29, 2021 10:27
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 29, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #211 (0d5fd83) into master (2357197) will decrease coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #211      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.35%   82.26%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          92       92              
  Lines        3469     3463       -6     
==========================================
- Hits         2857     2849       -8     
- Misses        456      457       +1     
- Partials      156      157       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
logging/log.go 40.54% <100.00%> (-4.46%) ⬇️
config/watcher/file.go 58.13% <0.00%> (-4.66%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 2357197...0d5fd83. Read the comment docs.

Only log.Valuer passed via log.With are treated as dynamic argument in go kit log. The change makes spanLogger consistent with go kit.
@Reasno Reasno merged commit a8bb41a into master Oct 30, 2021
@Reasno Reasno deleted the logging branch October 30, 2021 07:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants