[SSSD] RFC: Improving the debug messages

Sumit Bose sbose at redhat.com
Tue Sep 29 16:15:35 UTC 2015


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:57:32PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> 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

yes, that's what I meant, but maybe we should not use the internal
macros here, but something more explicit like ERR_CRIT, ERR_FUNC,
INF_CONFIG, INF_DATA, TRACE_... to make it more obvious what the message
might be about.

> that so many debug levels (mainly those that were mass-converted) are
> misplaced.

of course, but maybe having the level spelled out will help to identify
the ones that are misplaced more easy?

bye,
Sumit

> _______________________________________________
> sssd-devel mailing list
> sssd-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list