You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The "global" level setting isn't taken into account when transport.targets parameter is provided - each target has its own level that defaults to info (as mentioned here). That might be a bit confusing and should probably be mentioned in the documentation.
I appreciate that this might be an expected behaviour, but I'd expect this to be documented explicitly - I couldn't find the mention of it, unless I didn't look in the right place or I somehow missed it? It took me some time to figure out what's happening - it only started making sense when I've found the comment in the GitHub issue linked above.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
* `targets`: May be specified instead of `target`. Must be an array of transport configurations. Transport configurations include the aforementioned `options` and `target` options plus a `level` option which will send only logs above a specified level to a transport.
* `targets`: May be specified instead of `target`. Must be an array of transport configurations. Transport configurations include the aforementioned `options` and `target` options plus a `level` option which will send only logs above a specified level to a transport.
I don't see how the linked option documentation would clear up the confusion. I think that it should be clearly stated here or here to make it clear that if you provide a list of targets to pino(), the top-level level option is ignored.
The "global"
level
setting isn't taken into account whentransport.targets
parameter is provided - each target has its own level that defaults toinfo
(as mentioned here). That might be a bit confusing and should probably be mentioned in the documentation.For example originally having this config:
If I switch to the following, I'd lose
debug
logs:I appreciate that this might be an expected behaviour, but I'd expect this to be documented explicitly - I couldn't find the mention of it, unless I didn't look in the right place or I somehow missed it? It took me some time to figure out what's happening - it only started making sense when I've found the comment in the GitHub issue linked above.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: