Auto-flush on process exit improvements

[snakefoot]

AsyncHelpers.StartAsyncTask defaults to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem

Resolves #3200 . Tasks doesn't flush well on process-exit-event. Reverting back to NLog 4.4 behavior.

[304NotModified]

thanks!

Is this for NLog 4.6.1? (as 4.5.x and 4.6.0 are then "other behavior"?)

[snakefoot]

Yes it should be safe.

[304NotModified]

OK thanks!

[304NotModified]

@snakefoot I try to rename the PRs to a more functional title, so it's easier to use in the changelog. Did I rename this PR correct?

[snakefoot]

@304NotModified I like to describe the technical change, when not super sure whether it is actually the cure :)

[304NotModified]

I think "improved" was better then, as it's functional and it's not strict (it's fuzzy ;))

I don't think anyone cases if we use threadpools or tasks ;)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3255 into dev will decrease coverage by <1%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             dev   #3255    +/-   ##
======================================
- Coverage     80%     80%   -<1%     
======================================
  Files        354     355     +1     
  Lines      27972   27931    -41     
  Branches    3717    3709     -8     
======================================
- Hits       22335   22285    -50     
- Misses      4572    4573     +1     
- Partials    1065    1073     +8

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #3255 into dev will decrease coverage by <1%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##             dev   #3255    +/-   ##
======================================
- Coverage     80%     80%   -<1%     
======================================
  Files        354     355     +1     
  Lines      27972   27976     +4     
  Branches    3717    3717            
======================================
- Hits       22335   22316    -19     
- Misses      4572    4595    +23     
  Partials    1065    1065

[304NotModified]

I think "improved" was better then, as it's functional and it's not strict (it's fuzzy ;))

I don't think anyone cases if we use threadpools or tasks ;)

Is it OK if I would rename it back? Don't wanna have a PR title war ;)

[snakefoot]

You just rename it as you want :)

…

Sent from my Sony Xperia

---- Julian Verdurmen wrote ---- I think "improved" was better then, as it's functional and it's not strict (it's fuzzy ;)) I don't think anyone cases if we use threadpools or tasks ;) Is it OK if I would rename it back? Don't wanna have a PR title war ;) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#3255 (comment)>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK-fnMRTBJktgJdH8qt_JHV6xwCBgAc9ks5vbgntgaJpZM4cREA3>.

[304NotModified]

You just rename it as you want :)

It was tempting to rename it to "Julian is the best!1" 😄

[snakefoot]

Would be more descriptive and correct, than random improvement to ProcessExit-logic :)