Skip to content
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

Provide configuration alias for "failure_type_logging_whitelist" #1045

Open
tklever opened this issue Oct 20, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Provide configuration alias for "failure_type_logging_whitelist" #1045

tklever opened this issue Oct 20, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@tklever
Copy link

tklever commented Oct 20, 2021

I didn't find an issue or PR for this in my search, apologies if I'm being repetitious.

Summary

The elasticsearch output plugin utilizes a configuration key failure_type_logging_whitelist for skipping errors that one wishes not to log. There are some who feel that "whitelist" is an offensive term, connotating "whiteness" with "goodness".

Prior Art:

Feature

It would be backward incompatible and disruptive to the user community to immediately remove the offending term "whitelist" from the project, but providing an alias would allow consumers of this plugin a path to remove "whitelist" from their own projects on their own schedule. An alias could be provided for this configuration key, and while that would not rid the project itself of the term, it would enable users of this plugin to have options in their configuration files and make appropriate choices for themselves and their projects.

Possible aliases

  • failure_type_logging_allow_list
  • failure_type_logging_permit_list

Outcomes

Not everyone agrees on subjects like inclusive naming, but this feature would allow for choice.

If inclusive naming in software is important to someone, this alias would allow a path to avoid terms like whitelist persisting in their software and configurations. It is possible that there are many consumers of this project that would like to remove this exclusive language but are unable because of the value this plugin provides.

If it's not important to you, then the existing configuration API still exists, it doesn't cause any disruption.

Implementation

If this proposal is acceptable to the maintainers, I'll be glad to try my hand at making a PR with the change, but I didn't want to do so without first asking if I should expend the effort.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant