I think it’s not clear to me when you say “log”.
The activation record has a log field and a result field. Are you trying to add
error logs to the result field?
At first I thought you meant you wanted to omit the result field from the
activation record except during errors. But I think I misunderstood.
Maybe an example will be helpful.
-r
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Ruediger Maass <ruediger.ma...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> may I ask for comments? Annotations for the decision whether results
> should be added in the action log or not would not fix the problem we try
> to solve and is a different, independent question.
>
> We want to add error information in the log but not print results in the
> good (i.e., success) case. This can only be done if one inspects the
> activation 'success' field (or the 'error' field in the result) and in
> this case log the result that contains the error information. We could
> hard-code a strategy in `ActivationFileStorage`. But this has the
> disadvantage that it would change the default behavior of OpenWhisk and
> not everyone might like this and may have different opinions about the
> "right" strategy. Therefore we propose the more flexible way of
> introducing a flag, let anyone decide on the right strategy, and not
> hard-coding a strategy. In the default case, there would be no behavioral
> change of OpenWhisk with the flag, i.e. no one needs to care about the
> flag if not wanted. But it would help us and maybe others to solve the
> described problem.
>
> Thanks, Ruediger
>
>
>
> From: Ruediger Maass/Germany/IBM
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 04/09/2019 11:07
> Subject: Re: Allow decision about action result inclusion in logs
> on a per call basis
>
>
> Let me please add the information that the behavior of OpenWhisk is not
> changed by this fix. The provided feature must be actively chosen.
>
> Thanks, Ruediger
>
>
>
>
> From: "Ruediger Maass" <ruediger.ma...@de.ibm.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 04/09/2019 10:42
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Allow decision about action result
> inclusion in logs on a per call basis
>
>
>
> Thanks for the discussion!
>
> This PR is only about suppressing results in action logs. If a user still
> wants to have the result in the action log then he or she can simply add a
>
> log statement in the action for that. Why should we introduce a new
> mechanism for this like an annotation for automatically adding the result
> to the log (or not)? Seems complicated.
>
> In our specific case we need the flag per invocation because we want to
> the add the result in error cases. For example: main is not defined,
> compile error in action, etc. see below:
>
> 1) no main() in js
> "result": {
> "error": "Initialization has failed due to: ReferenceError:
> main is not defined\n
> at eval (eval at <anonymous>
> (/nodejsAction/runner.js:79:109), <anonymous>:8:8)\n
> at eval (eval at <anonymous>
> (/nodejsAction/runner.js:79:109), <anonymous>:8:14)\n
> at NodeActionRunner.init (/nodejsAction/runner.js:79:45)\n
> at doInit (/nodejsAction/src/service.js:142:31)\n
> at initCode (/nodejsAction/src/service.js:81:24)\n
> at /nodejsAction/app.js:69:13\n
> at Layer.handle [as handle_request]
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5)\n
> at next
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:131:13)\n
> at Route.dispatch
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:112:3)\n
> at Layer.handle [as handle_request]
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5)"
>
> 2) compile Error
> "result": {
> "error": "Initialization has failed due to: SyntaxError:
> Unexpected identifier\n
> at NodeActionRunner.init
> (/nodejsAction/runner.js:79:109)\n
> at doInit (/nodejsAction/src/service.js:142:31)\n
> at initCode (/nodejsAction/src/service.js:81:24)\n
> at /nodejsAction/app.js:69:13\n
> at Layer.handle [as handle_request]
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5)\n
> at next
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:131:13)\n
> at Route.dispatch
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/route.js:112:3)\n
> at Layer.handle [as handle_request]
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/layer.js:95:5)\n
> at /node_modules/express/lib/router/index.js:277:22\n
> at Function.process_params
> (/node_modules/express/lib/router/index.js:330:12)"
>
>
> This kind of information cannot be logged anywhere else and does not
> contain sensible information. It is very helpful information for the
> customer to correct the action. So we do not want to suppress this
> information.
>
>
>
> From: James Thomas <jthomas...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
> Date: 03/09/2019 15:24
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Allow decision about action result
> inclusion in logs on a per call basis
>
>
>
> This is a sensible change and I agree with what Rodric has suggested:
> can we make this a per-action annotation?
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 13:28, Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Action results may contain sensible data that should not be logged.
>>
>> I interpret this to mean: not stored in the activation record.
>>
>> If this is what you mean, why not make this a feature controlled per
> action
>> using an annotation and let the user decide: ok to save the result, not
> ok
>> to save the result, only save the result on error.
>>
>> -r
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 8:17 AM Ruediger Maass
> <ruediger.ma...@de.ibm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Action results may contain sensible data that should not be logged.
> There
>>> is a system configuration flag (writeResultToFile) that can be used to
>>> switch on or off the result inclusion in logs. But this is a global
> switch
>>> that holds for all activations. In our case we want to able to decide
> per
>>> activation whether or not the result should be included in the log or
> not.
>>> In our special case we want results to be included in case of errors
> (in
>>> other words, our predicate function for the decision is: 'Does the
> result
>>> contain an error field?'). But also other decision logic may be
>>> applicable.
>>>
>>> This PR
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_openwhisk_pull_4604&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=X0kuppcoBkurjGK5dhY1vViAOVizrmBkK-unFKRbRys&m=Omwt2ZmfdyerpXiU-HbIwPEvr7znKYAA4DFFhJiyk28&s=3z4nZkA573qZvgihbr448hMHPhnIC4zy7Y8MeuAENU0&e=
>
>
> is a small change
>>> that extends ActivationFileStorage.
>>>
>>> Please help and comment on the PR.
>>>
>>> Thank you, Ruediger
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
