LOG-6155: modify multiline detect exception transform to config message_key

[jcantrill]

This PR:

• modifies the multiline exception transform to add a configurable 'message_key'

Ref: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/LOG-6155

Rebase against 6.1 once #180 merges

/hold

cc @syedriko @vparfonov @vimalk78

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jcantrill: This pull request references LOG-6155 which is a valid jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

This PR:

• modifies the multiline exception transform to add a configurable 'message_key'

Ref: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/LOG-6155

Rebase against 6.1 once #180 merges

/hold

cc @syedriko @vparfonov @vimalk78

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jcantrill

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jcantrill]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

@jcantrill: This pull request references LOG-6155 which is a valid jira issue.

Details

In response to this:

This PR:

• modifies the multiline exception transform to add a configurable 'message_key'

Ref: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/LOG-6155

Rebase against 6.1 once #180 merges

/hold

cc @syedriko @vparfonov @vimalk78

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[jcantrill]

/hold cancel

[syedriko]

@jcantrill It works, but I'm wondering if it goes against the spirit of "field by meaning" from vectordotdev#17668 (comment).

[jcantrill]

@jcantrill It works, but I'm wondering if it goes against the spirit of "field by meaning" from vectordotdev#17668 (comment).

If I interpret this correctly, it fundamentally creates an abstract to a field value to allow consuming code to be agnostic of the source. I don't see exactly how would apply. We are adding a config point based upon the structure we know. We are already setting config for the grouping statements.

[vparfonov]

/lgtm