martinzink commented on code in PR #1810:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/1810#discussion_r1632850094
##########
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:
I prefer consistency, it doesnt cost us anything. I can image a scenario
where these logs are critical not from minifis point of view but rather from
the flow's perspective. (e.g. you log out critically a failure relationship
because its business critical to have the previous operation to be successfull)
--
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]
