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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
Allow integer log levels #3
Allow integer log levels #3
Changes from 2 commits
8233f95
3b01f4d
6cad040
8dcba68
27d1c31
7ee4d26
436295a
f04316c
7edf059
18ca37c
3f3cdf8
6a941ab
650d13d
33ea077
17f02d9
79ce374
45ab7eb
4faa982
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'm guessing the idea behind this change is that a user may have instantiated the
TestLogger
without defining all of those levels in their map? If so, I think my preference would be to revert this change and add some validation to the constructor to ensure that the map contains all log levels. That would ensure that all of the magic methods defined on lines 15-54 are always available and guaranteed to never throw aBadMethodCallException
.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.
Actually this was motivated by DRY. It smelled to me to repeat the name information twice in the class. I have kept this code, but added the requested validation to the __construct() method. Happy to remove this code if you prefer the simplicity of explicit repetition instead of DRY.