Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes:
Yep, that's what I had assumed you were going to do (this did come up in the big thread about the logging docs, but you may have missed it).
I hadn't missed it - I'm just spelling out in more detail what I'm going to do.
That said, you can't get a one-to-one correspondence in this case anyway, since some of the parameters relate to multiple attributes (e.g. "lvl" becomes both "levelNo" and "levelName").
It is rare that anyone will be constructing a LogRecord manually though, so I don't think the parameter names matter all that much in practice. It is far more common that people will be creating them implicitly through the Logger event notification methods or by deserialising them.
I agree, it's a pretty unlikely scenario. Of course, I do make use of the parameter names in the dictConfig approach, so I can't really complain. I should hopefully remember this when I'm writing out a method or function signature for a public API :-)