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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
tracing: fix macros "use of moved value" with log #1823
tracing: fix macros "use of moved value" with log #1823
Changes from 6 commits
874a462
bc81ef5
0ad95a9
68b56d0
c20567a
50fd7f2
b4c6208
ce02eda
a691c5b
a4e8d26
0c1ab2b
794040e
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.
i have a slight preference for giving this a
new
constructor, rather than apub
field, so that we can add new fields to it while still supporting earlier versions of the macros. however, i doubt this is an issue in practice, so it may not really matter...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, take it or leave it: this might look slightly nicer as a
match
?though, up to you
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.
I prefer the explicit something is only weird about the first one of the if. However, your snippet does produce a different output to mine, in the case of message not being the first field. Mine would produce:
whereas yours would produce:
Is that behaviour ok, or should I change it to be in line with yours?
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.
in practice, the
valueset!
macro will always re-order themessage
field to come first, so it doesn't really matter whether we handle it differently if it isn't the first field. i don't have a strong opinion about this code, so it's fine to leave it the way you had it if you prefer.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.
i wonder if we could improve the benchmark performance for disabled spans by going back to having a separate
if
statement forlevel_enabled!
and checking if the callsite is enabled? it might be worth trying that and re-running the benchmarks?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.
I had a go at this, but it didn't make any difference, and the way it is now is more readable to me.
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.
interesting, thanks for trying it anyway!