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

Allow custom levels to override default and allow to remove default levels #515

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 16, 2018
Merged

Allow custom levels to override default and allow to remove default levels #515

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 16, 2018

Conversation

sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor

@sooryranga sooryranga commented Sep 7, 2018

Solves:

  • Allows custom levels to override default levels provided by Pino
  • If needed default values from Pino can be removed

Reference : #507

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Sep 7, 2018

Can you add this option to the docs?

@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcollina sure!

@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcollina Added to docs, let me know if you have any other requests!

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Sep 8, 2018

CI is failing. It seems Object.values is not available.

@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcollina I added additional tests as well, I am not sure why CI is failing. Its failing because there isn't enough tests for a function initialising line. Should I write more tests for it?

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Sep 8, 2018

On Node 6: https://travis-ci.org/pinojs/pino/jobs/426109727. You are using some
syntax that is not available there.

@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

Updated to fit Node 6 API, still running into branch coverage problem. I covered all the cases that are possible with that function, not sure why its throwing that error.

@mcollina
Copy link
Member

mcollina commented Sep 9, 2018

You can use npm run cov-ui to generate the code coverage report. There is a condition in 1-2 branches that it is not covered.

@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcollina I figured out which branches wasn't covered. All the tests are passing, let me know if you have any comments on the implementation!

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

docs/api.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@sooryranga
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jsumners added the warning!

Copy link
Member

@jsumners jsumners left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 6, 2022

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 6, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants