Skip to content

Fix duplicate message rendering#6827

Merged
eerhardt merged 4 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
RafaelJCamara:bug/fix-duplicate-message-render
Dec 6, 2024
Merged

Fix duplicate message rendering#6827
eerhardt merged 4 commits intomicrosoft:mainfrom
RafaelJCamara:bug/fix-duplicate-message-render

Conversation

@RafaelJCamara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@RafaelJCamara RafaelJCamara commented Nov 27, 2024

Description

The line that was causing the duplication was:
0 => new(EventData.PayloadNames[0], EventData.Payload[0])

So I got rid of it.

Also, I assumed that this line was a part of the Count property, which was 5 before, and I reduced it to 4 now.

Based on this, I also slide down the indices of the index switch.

Before:
0

After:
2024-11-27_15h32_20

Fixes partially #2967

Checklist

  • Is this feature complete?
    • Yes. Ready to ship.
    • No. Follow-up changes expected.
  • Are you including unit tests for the changes and scenario tests if relevant?
    • Yes
    • No
  • Did you add public API?
    • Yes
      • If yes, did you have an API Review for it?
        • Yes
        • No
      • Did you add <remarks /> and <code /> elements on your triple slash comments?
        • Yes
        • No
    • No
  • Does the change make any security assumptions or guarantees?
    • Yes
      • If yes, have you done a threat model and had a security review?
        • Yes
        • No
    • No
  • Does the change require an update in our Aspire docs?
Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

@dotnet-policy-service dotnet-policy-service Bot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Nov 27, 2024
@RafaelJCamara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@RafaelJCamara please read the following Contributor License Agreement(CLA). If you agree with the CLA, please reply with the following information.

@dotnet-policy-service agree [company="{your company}"]

Options:

  • (default - no company specified) I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.
@dotnet-policy-service agree
  • (when company given) I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer. By signing below, the defined term “You” includes me and my employer.
@dotnet-policy-service agree company="Microsoft"

Contributor License Agreement

@dotnet-policy-service agree

@RafaelJCamara
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This is how it looks like now for Info/Warning:
Before:
image

After:
info_rmq_after

Comment thread src/Components/Aspire.RabbitMQ.Client/RabbitMQEventSourceLogForwarder.cs Outdated
Comment thread src/Components/Aspire.RabbitMQ.Client/RabbitMQEventSourceLogForwarder.cs Outdated
Comment thread src/Components/Aspire.RabbitMQ.Client/RabbitMQEventSourceLogForwarder.cs Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@eerhardt eerhardt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Thank you for the contribution!

@eerhardt eerhardt enabled auto-merge (squash) December 6, 2024 18:40
@eerhardt eerhardt merged commit a4b55cf into microsoft:main Dec 6, 2024
@github-actions github-actions Bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 6, 2025
@github-actions github-actions Bot added the needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners label Mar 10, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member needs-area-label An area label is needed to ensure this gets routed to the appropriate area owners

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants