bpo-40544: Set the validate field in logging Formatter with fileConfig

[mirii1994]

https://bugs.python.org/issue40544
This PR fixes python 3.8 bug that caused because of the add of the validate param (default: True) in logging.Formatter, it causing it to throws ValueError exception if the format param is not one of the 3 styles.
There was no way to set validate field when using logging.config.fileConfig, which breaks the code to users who want to upgrade to 3.8.

https://bugs.python.org/issue40544

[the-knights-who-say-ni]

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept this contribution by verifying everyone involved has signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

CLA Missing

Our records indicate the following people have not signed the CLA:

@mirii1994

For legal reasons we need all the people listed to sign the CLA before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day
before our records are updated.

You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received.

Thanks again for the contribution, we look forward to reviewing it!

[vsajip]

Are you using a custom style which is not one of the three supported styles? If so, perhaps dictConfig should be used instead. I would prefer to encourage people to move over to dictConfig as it supports configuring more of the logging API. The fileConfig usage should be for legacy applications only.

[mirii1994]

@vsajip Thanks for the quick response. It is a custom style. I know I can use dictConfig, but I do think that allowing the usage of fileConfig will solve a lot of trouble for people who are upgrading to 3.8.

[bedevere-bot]

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @vsajip for commit 930730a 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.

[vsajip]

I suggest this be simplified to vld = (vldstr != "False").

[vsajip]

Possibly a test could also be added for various values in the configuration.

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[vsajip]

I clicked on "Request changes", but for some reason the status has remained at "Awaiting review" ...

OK, it's changed now to "awaiting changes".

[mirii1994]

@vsajip I have made the requested changes; please review again

[bedevere-bot]

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@vsajip: please review the changes made to this pull request.

[vsajip]

How about adding tests?

[bedevere-bot]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[iritkatriel]

This PR seems to have been abandoned by the OP. Shall we close it?

[vsajip]

This PR seems to have been abandoned by the OP. Shall we close it?

Yes, I'll do that.