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

Add option to specify key in TimeStamper processor #51

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 16, 2015

Conversation

leplatrem
Copy link
Contributor

In my environment, the logging standard is to store the human-readable timestamp in a 'time' entry :)

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling ccfec64 on leplatrem:specify_key_in_timestamper into d6dfd8f on hynek:master.

@@ -207,36 +207,37 @@ class TimeStamper(object):
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601>`_, or `None` for a `UNIX
timestamp <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time>`_.
:param bool utc: Whether timestamp should be in UTC or local time.
:param str key: Property name stored in `event_dict`.
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don’t think ”Property” is the right term here. Maybe something like “Target key in event_dict for added timestamps.”?

@hynek
Copy link
Owner

hynek commented Mar 14, 2015

Please:

Thanks!

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 100.0% when pulling d0ce8c0 on leplatrem:specify_key_in_timestamper into d6dfd8f on hynek:master.

@hynek
Copy link
Owner

hynek commented Mar 16, 2015

Thanks! I was about to complain about <unreleased> but it actually works well. I need to redo the changelog ASAP. :-/

hynek added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2015
Add option to specify key in TimeStamper processor
@hynek hynek merged commit 0a90029 into hynek:master Mar 16, 2015
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

3 participants