Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 09:40
    zhangyiqiu starred exceptionless/Exceptionless
  • 07:45
  • 05:47
    ejsmith edited #471
  • 05:46
    ejsmith opened #471
  • 05:46

    ejsmith on strip-large-data

    Strip large data values out of … (compare)

  • Dec 11 19:54
    niemyjski synchronize #452
  • Dec 11 19:54

    niemyjski on elastic7

    Decrease batch size (compare)

  • Dec 11 14:51
    niemyjski synchronize #452
  • Dec 11 14:51

    niemyjski on elastic7

    Reset the alias cache before ru… (compare)

  • Dec 11 04:03

    ejsmith on mappings-refactor

    (compare)

  • Dec 11 04:02
    ejsmith synchronize #452
  • Dec 11 04:02

    ejsmith on elastic7

    Change a bunch of index field s… Updated dependencies. Revert to 2201-pre and 6 more (compare)

  • Dec 11 04:02
    ejsmith closed #470
  • Dec 11 04:02
    ejsmith edited #470
  • Dec 11 03:59
    ejsmith opened #470
  • Dec 11 03:14

    niemyjski on mappings-refactor

    Updated to latest foundatio (compare)

  • Dec 11 02:59

    niemyjski on mappings-refactor

    Tweaked the event index mapping… (compare)

  • Dec 11 01:53

    ejsmith on mappings-refactor

    Update cache client list method… (compare)

  • Dec 11 01:19

    ejsmith on mappings-refactor

    More index work (compare)

  • Dec 10 13:26
    niemyjski commented #468
benmaina
@benmaina
@niemyjski already uninstalled..
haha
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
:)
what are you looking to log in your projects?
exceptions/logs/feature usages/xyz?
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
@niemyjski I can happily add inheritance handling to our stringify method
do we need to use that all the time? or only for additional exception data?
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
that would be great
I think all the time
to be consistent we don’t know where we are calling stringify from
I don’t know if we have any stringify tests that check that or other simple data types.
probably need them if we are going to flatten cause we can’t error when flatting a string
I’m working on data exclusions in the .net client to be on pairity with the js client :)
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
okay
should i fix it in main?
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
yeah
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
exceptionless/Exceptionless.Net@896432e
:)
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
nice one!
should we flatten deeply?
or only first level?
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
how slow is this going to make it is my question
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
deep would be harder to do because of possible cycles
we do it first-level :-) k?
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
yeah
I just remembered I never implemented the depth support to the stringify method.
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
you mean max-depth?
that's right, i saw exceptions with very deep additional data pushing the layout out of its bounds on the right edge
it did not look pretty.
it was tables in tables. tables in tables in tables.
like a matryoshka doll
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
yeah
in the dot net client we do max depth
                json = serializer.Serialize(info.Data, exclusions, info.MaxDepthToSerialize.HasValue ? info.MaxDepthToSerialize.Value : 5, info.IgnoreSerializationErrors);
guess our default depth is 5
think it should be even smaller than that in js?
like 2
or 3
three might be good if we are doing a really small depth probably wouldn’t hurt to flatten it all but guess we should just flatten the first and it would be easy to flatten them all later if needed
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
in the meantime... i created a PR for my little refactoring. no actual build process improvements, yet. we need to discuss those a little more
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
ok
just let me know when you want to discus it
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
okay, there are multiple things :-)
first: test.
i tried it out and removed everything. karma, chrome, jasmine.
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
did it make it easier to test?
Frank Ebersoll
@frankebersoll
i added: mocha, chai.
syntax is marginally different, now it's expect(something).to.be.null instead of .to.be(null)
Blake Niemyjski
@niemyjski
ok
that’s fine if it makes testing easier :)