This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 1, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 196
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Added original exception to FailureCallback action (#449)
- Loading branch information
Showing
3 changed files
with
4 additions
and
4 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
a01baff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Towmeykaw If you don't mind me asking, why did you add exception to the callback when
LogEvent
already contains underlying exception atLogEvent.Event
?And, isn't this breaking change for people who use the callback? If we follow
SemVer
should this bev10.0.0
?a01baff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure I follow what you mean by it containing the exception. The LogEvent only contains an exception that has been logged. What this does is that it contains an exception like Http errors connecting to Elastic or mapping errors.
As for the breaking change I marked it as such in the PR.
a01baff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Towmeykaw I get it now. It is not an exception that we try to log, but the exception produced by logging infrastructure failure. Well, I guess it is minor breakage that is relatively obvious how to fix.
I would only suggest to document the change properly in
ReadMe
file, so that people are aware of it. And, perhaps, to make that sample app example more clear? Something along this lines:But that's only my 2 cents. @mivano probably has better overview what the next version should be (major, minor or fix).
a01baff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is a binary-breaking change, so we should up the major version. Lets merge and do some house keeping to align the versioning.
a01baff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@mivano Is it possible to first release this fix #519 (once it is finalized) as
v9.0.1
or is it too complicated now since this one is already merged?