-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 57
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
feat: support classic ingest keys, upgrade to libhoney 4.2.0 #726
feat: support classic ingest keys, upgrade to libhoney 4.2.0 #726
Conversation
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.
🎉
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.
Looks good. Left one query about not duplicating libhoney reqires, but otherwise good 👍🏻
@@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ const process = require("process"), | |||
tracker = require("../async_tracker"), | |||
pkg = require("../../package.json"), | |||
debug = require("debug")(`${pkg.name}:event`), | |||
libhoney = require("libhoney"), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need two require's for libhoney
and LibhoneyImpl
?
PS I prefer libhoney
over LibhoneyImpl
if we can just keep line.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I think we do need both, since the LibhoneyImpl
is coming from ./libhoney.js
in this repo while libhoney
is coming direct from the libhoney-js package as libhoney
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Interesting, I didn't notice the local reference for LibhoneyImpl
👍🏻 It's kinda weird we have a file named the same as one of our dependencies (which we maintain :)).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good - thanks @cewkrupa
@@ -5,9 +5,9 @@ const process = require("process"), | |||
tracker = require("../async_tracker"), | |||
pkg = require("../../package.json"), | |||
debug = require("debug")(`${pkg.name}:event`), | |||
libhoney = require("libhoney"), |
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, I didn't notice the local reference for LibhoneyImpl
👍🏻 It's kinda weird we have a file named the same as one of our dependencies (which we maintain :)).
Which problem is this PR solving?
We recently updated libhoney-js to support classic ingest keys. This PR updates the beeline to this version of libhoney-js and swaps
isClassic
to use the new exported method from libhoney.Short description of the changes
4.0.0
to4.2.0
utils.isClassic
in favor oflibhoney.isClassic