On (23/11/15 08:03), Petr Cech wrote:
On 11/20/2015 12:13 PM, Petr Cech wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I would like to work on:
>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2808
>However, there are two different opinions.
>
>Ticket description says:
>........................
>Currently a log message of SSSD like e.g.
>
># (Mon Jun 29 22:10:59 2015) [sssd[be[lab.runlevelone.lan]]]
>[be_get_account_info] (0x0200): Got request for [0x1001][1][name=dlavu]
>
>has the debug level given by '(0x0200)'. For the inexperienced reader it
>is hard to see if the message indicates an error or is only some
>informational messages.
>
>It would be good to replace them which short text tags which better
>indicates the character and severity of the message. E.g. something like
>ERR_CRIT, INFO_DATA, TRACE_FUNC ...
>-----
>
>Jakub said:
>One issue that I realized is that we might want to add the string
>representation in addition to hexa to avoid breaking existing scripts.
>But on the other hand, I'm not sure if we should care too much about
>keeping compatibility of debug logs...
>
>And Lukas said:
>I use very often hexadecimal representation for filtering huge log file.
>So it should not be replaced. It's much simpler (and shorter) to write
>regex for hexadecimal numbers.
>-----
>
>In my opinion, we should write numerical values if and only if they
>represent values (uid for example), not enum constant.
>
>
>In this situation I feel that filtering is important.
>I suggest use:
># (Mon Jun 29 22:10:59 2015) [sssd[be[lab.runlevelone.lan]]]
>[be_get_account_info] (0x0200 | INFO_FUNC_DATA): Got request for
>[0x1001][1][name=dlavu]
>
>What is your opinion, please?
>
>Regards
>
>Petr
>_______________________________________________
>sssd-devel mailing list
>sssd-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
>
Hi,
I have one opinion.
I just try to do such text labels:
SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE --> "ERR_FATAL_FAILURE"
SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE --> "ERR_CRIT_FAILURE"
SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE --> "ERR_OP_FAILURE"
SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE --> "ERR_MINOR_FAILURE"
SSSDBG_CONF_SETTINGS --> "INFO_CONF_SETTINGS"
SSSDBG_FUNC_DATA --> "INFO_FUNC_DATA"
SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC --> "TRACE_FUNC"
SSSDBG_TRACE_LIBS --> "TRACE_LIBS"
SSSDBG_TRACE_INTERNAL --> "TRACE_INTERNAL"
SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL --> "TRACE_ALL"
SSSDBG_BE_FO --> "FAIL_OVER"
Isn't this way better?
SSSDBG_FATAL_FAILURE --> "F4"
SSSDBG_CRIT_FAILURE --> "F3"
SSSDBG_OP_FAILURE --> "E3"
SSSDBG_MINOR_FAILURE --> "W3"
SSSDBG_CONF_SETTINGS --> "I2"
SSSDBG_FUNC_DATA --> "I2"
SSSDBG_TRACE_FUNC --> "T3"
SSSDBG_TRACE_LIBS --> "T2"
SSSDBG_TRACE_INTERNAL --> "T1"
SSSDBG_TRACE_ALL --> "T1"
SSSDBG_BE_FO --> "E4"
^^
SSSDBG_BE_FO does not mean an error.
I suppose category Fatal, Error, Warning. Trace, Info, each at 4 levels.
No because
man sssd.conf says something different about debug levels.
@see man sss.conf -> GENERAL OPTIONS
-> Options usable in all sections
-> debug_level
LS