I think we fell off the list - sorry
On November 3, 2016 at 12:09:02, Otto Fowler ([email protected]) wrote: METRON-538 Everyone is welcome to comment. On November 3, 2016 at 12:06:28, Ryan Merriman ([email protected]) wrote: Makes sense. On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Otto Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should have two jiras, two pr’s. > I’ll create one for the shutdown issues. > > > > On November 3, 2016 at 12:02:53, Ryan Merriman ([email protected]) > wrote: > > Yeah let's do it in parallel. You can start with the shutdown issues and > I'll work on making the log levels configurable. Let's go ahead and > proceed with 2 log configurations and see how it goes. If you get done > first, just submit a PR and I'll add to it. > > Thanks Otto. I can't wait to get this fixed. > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Otto Fowler <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have not. I was going to start looking at shutdown while waiting for >> consensus on 1 v 2 log configurations. >> How do you want to proceed? We can do it together. >> >> >> On November 3, 2016 at 11:43:24, Ryan Merriman ([email protected]) >> wrote: >> >> Otto, have you started on any of this yet? Was thinking I would start with >> getting the log levels consistent and dig into the shutdown issues. Then >> we can iterate from there. >> >> Ryan >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Ryan Merriman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > I vote for 1 logging configuration (ERROR only). Why do we want >> different >> > logging in Travis vs local? If you are working on a specific component >> and >> > need more verbose logging, temporarily change the log level to INFO for >> > that component. If we get the logging in shape this will be easy to do. >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Otto Fowler <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:13 PM >> >> <http://airmail.calendar/2016-10-28%2015:13:00%20EDT>, David Lyle < >> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I think you noticed the main problem with turning logging off >> entirely. >> >> > >> >> > I'd be inclined to have two files: one which defaults to INFO and >> >> another >> >> > that defaults to ERROR for Travis. We can give a >> >> -Dlog4j.configuration=file:log4j.config.set.to.ERROR.only >> >> > for travis, which I think Otto suggested. >> >> >> >> So - >> >> * one jira to fix the component shutdowns ( I’ll take a stab unless you >> >> are >> >> already on it ) >> >> * one jira to have travis run with a second configuration ( be it >> >> literally >> >> a second file or something else ) set to error only >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On November 2, 2016 at 13:51:28, Casey Stella ([email protected]) >> wrote: >> >> >> >> What would be in the two different logging properties? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Otto Fowler <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > What about having two logging configurations? One just for travis, >> and >> >> > one pretty much what there is now ( the teardown stuff still has to >> be >> >> > sorted out ). Maybe Travis can be scripted to put the right logging >> >> > properties files in place? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On November 2, 2016 at 12:42:09, Casey Stella ([email protected]) >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I haven't seen a JIRA about this yet. IMHO, I think a good first-pass >> >> > would be: >> >> > * We have a lot of ERROR level logging that happens because during >> >> teardown >> >> > of the in memory components that could be fixed by tearing down >> >> components >> >> > in the right order (possibly). >> >> > * Teardown in some of our integration tests don't seem to get called >> if >> >> the >> >> > tests fail, this causes cascading errors to happen ( the next test >> won't >> >> > start because it can't start the components), so ensuring teardown >> >> happens >> >> > in a finally block would be good >> >> > * If there are chatty components that are inappropriately logging, we >> >> can >> >> > adjust the logging level on a per-package basis. Tender balance >> between >> >> > suppressing valuable output and chattiness would ahve to be made (and >> >> > probably discussed as part of a JIRA). >> >> > >> >> > In retrospect, after considering this after the previous discussion >> on >> >> the >> >> > dev list, I would not be in favor of logging to a file. It is >> important >> >> to >> >> > see those logs on the travis output to help with quick-debugging help >> >> and >> >> > we'd be setting ourselves up to be non-standard as well. I'd rather >> see >> >> a >> >> > more directed and surgical effort. >> >> > >> >> > That's just my $0.02, though. I'd welcome a JIRA (or multiple JIRAs) >> to >> >> > tackle logging. >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Otto Fowler < >> [email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Did a jira for this actually get created? I would be willing to >> help >> >> work >> >> > > on getting the logs setup for what they need to be for travis and >> for >> >> > > local. Did we settle on an approach? Is there work ongoing that >> could >> >> use >> >> > > some dev or testing help? >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >
