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

LogBuilder - Support Fluent API where message-template is assigned later #2963

Closed

Conversation

snakefoot
Copy link
Contributor

@snakefoot snakefoot commented Oct 21, 2018

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 21, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #2963 into dev will decrease coverage by <1%.
The diff coverage is 63%.

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             dev   #2963    +/-   ##
======================================
- Coverage     80%     80%   -<1%     
======================================
  Files        331     331            
  Lines      25715   25717     +2     
  Branches    3337    3338     +1     
======================================
- Hits       20633   20615    -18     
- Misses      4140    4165    +25     
+ Partials     942     937     -5

@snakefoot snakefoot force-pushed the LogBuilderMessageAfterProperties branch 3 times, most recently from 7367a83 to 5ae0b18 Compare October 22, 2018 17:39
@snakefoot snakefoot force-pushed the LogBuilderMessageAfterProperties branch 2 times, most recently from 72d1a21 to ba184f6 Compare October 23, 2018 04:54
@snakefoot
Copy link
Contributor Author

@304NotModified Maybe release NLog 4.5.11 with this bug-fix, since NLog 4.6 is not ready yet.

@304NotModified 304NotModified added this to the 4.5.11 milestone Oct 31, 2018
@304NotModified
Copy link
Member

this is bugfix, isn't?

@snakefoot
Copy link
Contributor Author

this is bugfix, isn't?

Yes it fails to correctly capture the message-template-properties, when assigning message-template after having added custom-properties.

@304NotModified
Copy link
Member

Could you please rebase this on master? Then I could cherry-pick it afterwards to dev. Thanks!

@snakefoot
Copy link
Contributor Author

snakefoot commented Oct 31, 2018

@304NotModified Could you please rebase this on master?

Only if ver. 4.5.11 also includes #2983 + #2940 + #2937 + #2926 :)

Should I make new PullRequest for these on master, since already merged to dev?

@304NotModified
Copy link
Member

Only if ver. 4.5.11 also includes #2983 + #2940 + #2937 + #2926 :)

Should I make new PullRequest for these on master, since already merged to dev?

yes please!

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.

None yet

2 participants