On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:18:07AM +0200, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:07:30PM -0400, Dan Lavu wrote:
> I've been watching various logs for the past few minutes, FWIW, I think a more
casual message will help people better understand what SSSD is doing. Look at debug level
4, the first instance of a user name look up (getent passwd dlavu) a common command we
tell folks to test to see if SSSD is working
>
> (Mon Jun 29 22:10:59 2015) [sssd[be[lab.runlevelone.lan]]] [be_get_account_info]
(0x0200): Got request for [0x1001][1][name=dlavu]
>
> Just imagine if you knew nothing about SSSD and how it worked, what can you gather
from this line of text? Timestamp, process, domain, get_account_info, got_request and
userid and the rest is sort of gibberish and what is the difference between
be_get_account_info and got_request_for? I think it's confusing, now looking at some
other logs messages.
What is missing in the list of components above is '(0x0200)' which is
the debug_level. We recently had a number of questions about messages
from a high debug level which in general have an information character,
but since it not easy to identify the level of the message it was
considered as an error message. Maybe it would be good to have a some
translations here as well to make it easier to separate errors from
infos.
Do you mean printing the level as string, so that instead of:
[sssd[be[lab.runlevelone.lan]]] [be_get_account_info] (0x0200): Got request for
[0x1001][1][name=dlavu]
we would have:
[sssd[be[lab.runlevelone.lan]]] [be_get_account_info] (SSSDBG_FUNC_DATA): Got request
for [0x1001][1][name=dlavu]
?
If yes, then I agree. But at the same time, I think it's more irritating
that so many debug levels (mainly those that were mass-converted) are
misplaced.