Re: [Repoze-dev] debug logger evilness?
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 17:49 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: > Chris McDonough wrote: > > Calling getLogger results in an *atexit* hook related to a handler being > > registered for the current Python process. It might also, depending on > > its mood, print to stdout. These things make it miserable to actually > > unit test any application which calls getLogger. See also > > http://plope.com/Members/chrism/logging_blues > > You want LogCapture: > http://packages.python.org/testfixtures/logging.html That looks useful for things that do use getLogger and for people who have problems mocking up loggers. But FIWW, I don't really have a problem mocking up the debug logger in the BFG unit tests and I can't think up a case where I want to assert anything about what gets sent to it except in its own unit tests. > Admittedly, I hadn't noticed the atexit hook getting added, but I've > never been bitten by it.. I have. It hurt bad. See this scar above my eye on my forehead? ... - C ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] debug logger evilness?
Chris McDonough wrote: > Calling getLogger results in an *atexit* hook related to a handler being > registered for the current Python process. It might also, depending on > its mood, print to stdout. These things make it miserable to actually > unit test any application which calls getLogger. See also > http://plope.com/Members/chrism/logging_blues You want LogCapture: http://packages.python.org/testfixtures/logging.html Admittedly, I hadn't noticed the atexit hook getting added, but I've never been bitten by it.. > That said, you can pass in a logger instance to the Configurator as a > debug logger (as the debug_logger parameter) if you need to replace it > to capture logging output of BFG itself during a "unit test" (more > likely a functional test really). Yep, certainly functional tests... Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
Re: [Repoze-dev] debug logger evilness?
Calling getLogger results in an *atexit* hook related to a handler being registered for the current Python process. It might also, depending on its mood, print to stdout. These things make it miserable to actually unit test any application which calls getLogger. See also http://plope.com/Members/chrism/logging_blues That said, you can pass in a logger instance to the Configurator as a debug logger (as the debug_logger parameter) if you need to replace it to capture logging output of BFG itself during a "unit test" (more likely a functional test really). If you're currently using the debug logger for your own application, and that's why you need to replace it within a unit test, maybe just don't use it. Just use getLogger and accept its evilness or construct your own logger instance by hand. No object within repoze.bfg.log is an API. The debug logger is meant for internal use by BFG only. On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 17:22 +0100, Chris Withers wrote: > Hi All, > > Is there any reason why repoze.bfg.log:make_stream_logger manually > instantiates a logger rather than doing logging.getLogger(name)? > > It makes it harder than it needs to be to replace the handlers of the > logger for unit testing purposes :-/ > > cheers, > > Chris > > ___ > Repoze-dev mailing list > Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org > http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev > ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
[Repoze-dev] debug logger evilness?
Hi All, Is there any reason why repoze.bfg.log:make_stream_logger manually instantiates a logger rather than doing logging.getLogger(name)? It makes it harder than it needs to be to replace the handlers of the logger for unit testing purposes :-/ cheers, Chris ___ Repoze-dev mailing list Repoze-dev@lists.repoze.org http://lists.repoze.org/listinfo/repoze-dev
