SLF4Js fluent API

[vhf-cmatejka]

Hello,
are there any plans to add support for ch.qos.logback.classic.spi.ILoggingEvent's KVPs?
We are currently migrating the logging in our Lambdas to AWS Powertools but we make heavy use of SLF4J's fluent API and KVPs are ignored by software.amazon.lambda.powertools.logging.logback.LambdaJsonEncoder.

[phipag]

Hi @vhf-cmatejka,

thanks for opening this discussion. Is there something that is not working for you? Technically, we support all SLF4J features since the Powertools logic is injected into the logging backend (log4j2 or logback depending on your choice).

From within an annotated @Logging handler you would then be able to use SLF4J regularly.

[phipag]

Thanks, so the issue is not that the logging context is missing but rather that the addKeyValue() method from the fluent API is not working. Do I understand this correctly?

Did you try if the Powertools structured arguments work? https://docs.aws.amazon.com/powertools/java/latest/core/logging/#custom-keys

Replace this:

        log.atInfo().setMessage("Processing event").addKeyValue("eventId", eventId).log();

with

        log.atInfo().setMessage("Processing event", entry("eventId", eventId)).log();

[vhf-cmatejka]

Yes, sorry — the title and the original question were misleading.

LoggingEventBuilder does not provide a setMessage() method with two parameters.
However, using log.info("Processing event", entry("eventId", eventId)) works as intended and produces the same log output as our modified LambdaJsonEncoder.

Switching to this approach would require extensive changes to our logging statements: moving from the fluent API to the regular API style and introducing a dependency on software.amazon.lambda.powertools.logging.argument.StructuredArguments.entry.

Given this, we are fine with our current solution. We mainly wanted to confirm that we were not misusing the existing mechanism.

[phipag]

Cool. If you can share it, would you be able to share your modified LambdaJsonEncoder? Potentially, even contributing your fix to this repository open-source?

[cmtjk]

PR: #2377 (requires clarification)

[phipag]

Created issue from this discussion #2378. Resolving this discussion in favor of the issue. Future communication will be on the PR or respectively the issue.