Feature: instrument(skip_all)] / instrument(only(foo.bar, foo.baz)) #1273
Comments
d4h0
changed the title
|
The following is a better example: This: #[instrument(
skip(req, static_files, default_extension, cmd_channel),
fields(uri=req.uri().path())
)]
async fn handle_request(
mut req: Request<Body>,
static_files: Static,
default_extension: Arc<Option<String>>,
cmd_channel: mpsc::UnboundedSender<Cmd>,
) -> Result<Response<Body>, io::Error> { .. }...would become this: #[instrument(only(uri=req.uri().path()))]
async fn handle_request(
mut req: Request<Body>,
static_files: Static,
default_extension: Arc<Option<String>>,
cmd_channel: mpsc::UnboundedSender<Cmd>,
) -> Result<Response<Body>, io::Error> { .. } |
|
Thanks, @Stargateur! Yes, #1306 (mentioned in #651) would make my proposal unnecessary (and would be ideal, in my opinion). |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Feature Request
A new argument to
instrument, that skips all arguments to the function, that the attribute macro is applied to. Similarly, ainstrumentargument that only shows certain parts of a value (basically, a combination ofskip_allandfields).Crates
tracing
Motivation
Often, the arguments that I pass to functions are complex/verbose. It would be nice, if it was possible to skip all arguments in one go. Then we could use
fieldsto select only the data that is relevant.Similarly, an
only/extract/includeargument could skip everything, and select/transform what is wanted (as mentioned, a combination ofskip_allandfields).With my proposal this:
... would become:
Even better would something like this:
...but I don't know if it would be possible to implement something like this in a generic way (without being tied to only
structs).Proposal
I have no idea. Unfortunately, at the moment, I have not learned how to use procedural macros yet (which also means, that I couldn't implement this myself, at the moment).
Alternatives
Currently, arguments to skip have to be specified via
skipand then fields to include have to be defined viafields, which is more cumbersome than what I propose.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: