Skip to content

Support optional: prefix with logging.log4j2.config.override #44488

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nosan
Copy link
Contributor

@nosan nosan commented Feb 28, 2025

See gh-44399

@nosan nosan changed the title Allow skipping unavailable override configurations in Log4j2 Support optional: prefix with logging.log4j2.config.override Feb 28, 2025
@spring-projects-issues spring-projects-issues added the status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged label Feb 28, 2025
@nosan

This comment was marked as outdated.

@nosan nosan marked this pull request as draft February 28, 2025 11:38
@nosan nosan marked this pull request as ready for review February 28, 2025 12:40
@nosan nosan force-pushed the gh-44399 branch 2 times, most recently from f4c65be to 785fbff Compare March 2, 2025 09:43
Introduced support for the 'optional:' prefix in Log4j2
override file locations, ensuring missing files are ignored without
throwing exceptions.

See spring-projectsgh-44488

Signed-off-by: Dmytro Nosan <dimanosan@gmail.com>
@snicoll snicoll added type: enhancement A general enhancement and removed status: waiting-for-triage An issue we've not yet triaged labels Apr 17, 2025
@snicoll snicoll self-assigned this Apr 17, 2025
@snicoll snicoll added this to the 3.5.0-RC1 milestone Apr 17, 2025
snicoll pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2025
This commit adds support for the standard 'optional:' prefix in Log4j2
override file locations, ensuring missing files are ignored without
throwing exceptions.

See gh-44488

Signed-off-by: Dmytro Nosan <dimanosan@gmail.com>
snicoll added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 17, 2025
See gh-44488

Signed-off-by: Dmytro Nosan <dimanosan@gmail.com>
@snicoll snicoll closed this in 4d67fbb Apr 17, 2025
@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Apr 17, 2025

Thanks again, Dmytro.

@nosan
Copy link
Contributor Author

nosan commented Apr 17, 2025

Thanks, @snicoll

I've noticed that you used:

[NOTE]
 ====

Instead of NOTE:

I wanted to ask if there is an issue with using just NOTE:? I am trying to understand the recommended approach for future PRs.

@snicoll
Copy link
Member

snicoll commented Apr 17, 2025

I wanted to make the note multi-lines. In retrospect I suppose it would have worked with NOTE: and I am not sure we have a standardization for this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants