You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is admittedly a bit of a minor nit, but I thought it was worth bringing up: currently, the console formats fields with the form <field name>(<field value>). This resembles the Rust syntax for function application. I think it might be better to change this to a format that looks more typical for a key-value pair.
Since fields are specified in the tracing macros as <field_name> = <field_value>, I think it might be good to format them with the same syntax as they are specified. This is what tracing-fmt's default formatters use. Alternatively, we could use <field_name>: <field_value>, similarly to struct initializer syntax.
We might also want to consider special-casing fields named message, since they are known to contain a textual, human-readable message.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is admittedly a bit of a minor nit, but I thought it was worth bringing up: currently, the console formats fields with the form
<field name>(<field value>)
. This resembles the Rust syntax for function application. I think it might be better to change this to a format that looks more typical for a key-value pair.Since fields are specified in the
tracing
macros as<field_name> = <field_value>
, I think it might be good to format them with the same syntax as they are specified. This is whattracing-fmt
's default formatters use. Alternatively, we could use<field_name>: <field_value>
, similarly to struct initializer syntax.We might also want to consider special-casing fields named
message
, since they are known to contain a textual, human-readable message.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: