-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 301
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
Observability: Access Logging #1407
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1407 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 62.01% 61.50% -0.51%
==========================================
Files 79 79
Lines 11388 11473 +85
==========================================
- Hits 7062 7057 -5
- Misses 3867 3956 +89
- Partials 459 460 +1
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd vote to pull out filtering at first, for certain.
I'm a little torn on the logging API itself: being able to define multiple log mechanisms feels useful, but is it really? If we don't think it's actually useful, I'd probably vote for a simpler syntax.
@zirain Quick question: if you specify both |
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
@kflynn sorry, can you take a look again? |
thanks for updating the PR, +1 on the overall layout of fields, added some comments around field names |
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: hejianpeng <hejianpeng2@huawei.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM thanks !
// can be used as values for fields within the Struct. | ||
// It's required when the format type is "json". | ||
// +optional | ||
Fields map[string]string `json:"fields,omitempty"` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
needs to be updated to reflect newer API
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
needs to be updated to reflect newer API
will done it within a followup PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good, thanks! When this starts getting implementations, we'll (of course) need tests, but for defining the API I think this is good to go. 🙂
yes, we already setup e2e framework. |
xref: #699
base on #1121, provide access log setting per
EnvoyProxy
cc @arkodg @AliceProxy @kflynn @Xunzhuo