We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Hi,
As far as I understand, disabling/replacing the reflection based destructurer isn't an option.
(see also https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59054681/is-it-possible-to-disabled-the-reflection-based-destructurer-in-serilog-exceptions)
Is a PR accepted for this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @304NotModified, thanks for reaching out.
You are right, this is not an option yet. Nobody asked for it and we did not think about it :-).
I am pretty sure that we would agree on backward-compatible change that would allow disabling reflection-based destructurer.
I think I can implement it early next week.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Cool!
Fixed in #158
5.4.0 released.
Great!
No branches or pull requests
Hi,
As far as I understand, disabling/replacing the reflection based destructurer isn't an option.
(see also https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59054681/is-it-possible-to-disabled-the-reflection-based-destructurer-in-serilog-exceptions)
Is a PR accepted for this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: