UnmarshalLogMessage to use json.Number #178
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
radeksimko
force-pushed
the
f-logging-json-number
branch
from
b912b45 to
47acc88
Compare
radeksimko
force-pushed
the
f-logging-json-number
branch
from
47acc88 to
2121e62
Compare
dbanck
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Prior to this patch,
any, such asterraform-json/logging_query.go
Line 20 in 3fe6fb2
would get decoded into
float64. As we cannot know ahead of time the requirements for the numbers in these structures, we should apply more cautious approach and retain numbers asjson.Numberrather than assume they can all be safely decoded intofloat64.This follows a behaviour implemented in #26 that was made opt-in mostly for backwards-compatible reasons but many important downstream consumers do opt-in. Which is to say that it probably would've been a default behaviour there as well if we weren't concerned about backwards compatibility.
This new interface for log messages was released only recently (yesterday) and so while it strictly speaking implies a breaking change, it should not impact (m)any consumers in reality.