On (23/11/15 08:32), Petr Cech wrote:
On 11/23/2015 08:13 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>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
Hi Lukas,
I am afraid that I have to disagree, Lukas. The idea of ticket #2808 is make
logs more readable for admins. I think it is good idea.
Have you read manual page?
Does the descrition in man page match your proposal with
Fatal, Error, Warning. Trace, Info?
LS