szaszm commented on code in PR #1810:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/1810#discussion_r1631140437
##########
extensions/standard-processors/processors/LogAttribute.h:
##########
@@ -33,24 +33,23 @@
#include "core/PropertyType.h"
#include "core/RelationshipDefinition.h"
#include "core/logging/LoggerConfiguration.h"
-#include "utils/gsl.h"
#include "utils/Export.h"
namespace org::apache::nifi::minifi::processors {
class LogAttribute : public core::Processor {
public:
- explicit LogAttribute(std::string_view name, const utils::Identifier& uuid =
{})
+ explicit LogAttribute(const std::string_view name, const utils::Identifier&
uuid = {})
: Processor(name, uuid) {
logger_->set_max_log_size(-1);
}
~LogAttribute() override = default;
EXTENSIONAPI static constexpr const char* Description = "Logs attributes of
flow files in the MiNiFi application log.";
- EXTENSIONAPI static constexpr auto LogLevel =
core::PropertyDefinitionBuilder<5>::createProperty("Log Level")
+ EXTENSIONAPI static constexpr auto LogLevel =
core::PropertyDefinitionBuilder<6>::createProperty("Log Level")
.withDescription("The Log Level to use when logging the Attributes")
- .withAllowedValues({"info", "trace", "error", "warn", "debug"})
+ .withAllowedValues({"trace", "debug", "info", "warn", "error",
"critical"})
Review Comment:
Do we really need critical here? I'm not even sure about its usefulness
elsewhere, but a LogAttribute message will certainly not be a critical error,
which I consider those that kill or crash the minifi agent.
Do you prefer a consistent set of log levels, even if one of the options
don't make sense to be user-exposed?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
