-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
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
Receive all logs if no attributes are specified #37721
Conversation
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 nice overall, should have a doc update as well, and a test.
This PR was marked stale due to lack of activity. It will be closed in 14 days. |
Sorry, haven't gotten around to writing the tests and doc changes. Hope to do so soon. |
@dehaansa Should be ready for full test and review. It's my first time contributing code to this repo, who's approval do I need to get CI running? (I see another reviewer as well as an assignee). |
Any approver or maintainer can approve CI when approval is required. I've approved them - looks like you've got some linter issues to resolve before this is ready to merge, otherwise looking good! |
5a9c302
to
4a281f7
Compare
I noticed CI didn't run for the most recent commit. Was that because I force-pushed, or does approval only last for a few commits before needing it again? |
Sadly it only lasts per commit, I was manually responding to the others. I believe CI runs much friendleir once you've got a contribution or three under your belt and can apply for membership. |
Relevant parts of the failed test (everything else was essentially repeats of these). Seems pretty unrelated to me. Guessing it just needs a re-run?
|
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, integration test flake seems unrelated. Thanks for the contribution!
Description
I'm proposing a new convention where if the attributes field is empty, then it indicates we want to ingest everything that is sent. This helps users avoid having to modify which fields they want in two places. Happy to submit a PR myself. Please check out the linked issue and let me know if you approve or want any changes. Then I will finish implementing whatever else is necessary (e.g docs, tests).
Link to tracking issue
Fixes #37720
Testing
I added a
TestEmptyAttributes()
test to verify the behavior inlogs_test.go
Documentation
I documented the new behavior in the
README.md
and added a separate config example of how it can be used