[SSSD] RFC: Improving the debug messages

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Tue Sep 29 15:57:32 UTC 2015


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.


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list