-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
Permalink
Choose a base ref
{{ refName }}
default
Choose a head ref
{{ refName }}
default
Comparing changes
Choose two branches to see what’s changed or to start a new pull request.
If you need to, you can also or
learn more about diff comparisons.
Open a pull request
Create a new pull request by comparing changes across two branches. If you need to, you can also .
Learn more about diff comparisons here.
base repository: xolox/python-coloredlogs
Failed to load repositories. Confirm that selected base ref is valid, then try again.
Loading
base: 11.0
Could not load branches
Nothing to show
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
{{ refName }}
default
Loading
...
head repository: xolox/python-coloredlogs
Failed to load repositories. Confirm that selected head ref is valid, then try again.
Loading
compare: 11.1
Could not load branches
Nothing to show
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
{{ refName }}
default
Loading
- 6 commits
- 6 files changed
- 1 contributor
Commits on Feb 15, 2020
-
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for e207250 - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA e207250View commit details -
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for b63fce3 - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA b63fce3View commit details -
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for 1cfe038 - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA 1cfe038View commit details -
Try to fix #59 by simplifying approach (removing #47)
To be honest I'm not sure why I merged #47 without critically thinking through how it would actually work, because I spotted several mistakes now, reevaluating how it was supposed to work: - logging.getLogRecordFactory() is documented to "return a callable which is used to create a LogRecord" so conceptually "two levels of calls" are required for proper usage, however coloredlogs only performed "one level of calls" as opposed to two. - Regardless of the above, the relevant code in coloredlogs is intended to make lightweight copies of existing LogRecord objects, not really construct new ones, so in retrospect logging.getLogRecordFactory() seems like the wrong tool for the job. - I don't know why I didn't write the "lightweight instance copy" code to just copy the __class__ from the original LogRecord instance to begin with, but this now seems to me to be the more reasonable approach (that should have been used from the beginning). - I believe this new approach will be more compatible with custom log record factories based on the fact that it simply doesn't interact with them in any meaningful way 😇.
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for 4a8abd9 - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA 4a8abd9View commit details -
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for c66b50c - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA c66b50cView commit details -
Configuration menu - View commit details
-
Copy full SHA for b929c0b - Browse repository at this point
Copy the full SHA b929c0bView commit details
Loading
This comparison is taking too long to generate.
Unfortunately it looks like we can’t render this comparison for you right now. It might be too big, or there might be something weird with your repository.
You can try running this command locally to see the comparison on your machine:
git diff 11.0...11.1