Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Fix parsing win event log message #627
Fix parsing win event log message #627
Changes from 5 commits
915ef5e
c6a41c9
e197f44
3dcd0f6
6edc17b
3d40e16
04da18c
7daa253
79f98f5
dbc4bf4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
IMO, would it be better to use regexp with FindAllString and replaces as we go? It shares the same time complexity in the code and avoid special condition. (e.g regexp with %d)
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.
We should not be measuring purely on time complexity. We should proof it out with benchmark tests to verify CPU and mem usage.
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.
Agree. Benchmark would be a better data for weighing the decisions.
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.
nit: Consider checking the
rawMessage
for%
as well to see if we can skip this entire section.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.
That's true. I was thinking checking
%
would iterate through the strings first and iterate again when inserting values. This would make it a O(2n) time. But I guess although it would be O(n) without checking%
, re-constructing the string forrawMessage
without%
also takes time/resouceThere 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.
2nd thought on this. I'm keeping the current implementation for rawMessage without
%
since :rawMessage
only once and returnsb.String()
%
, it's doing almost the same as!strings.Contains(rawMessage, "%")
. But in case there are any%
, it is going to iterate each character ofrawMessage
twice.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.
nit: This could be else if.