Should logging differentiate 200 from 201 statuses? Are 204 taken into account?

[rlittle08]

As we're working on surfacing lightbeam logs in tables, we realized it is unclear whether records were 200 vs. 201. This is important tracking info - if 200, we should display as such, so analysts/DEs/TDLs understand that the records were found to be "not new".

Similarly, it's unclear to me how/whether 204 status codes are handled in the logging

[tomreitz]

Currently all of these 2xx statuses are treated as "success." The CLI output shows counts by status code, but I believe the structured logs don't split them out. We could change that behavior if needed? Maybe you can propose a revision to the structure of the --results-file format to include explicit counts by status?

[tomreitz]

Closing this issue, as it was implemented in the above-mentioned PR.