Fix/ub 1325 adda action name to the logs

[olgashtivelman]

this PR will add an action name to each log line. (for example all oprerations that are part of Delete will have the request-action name in the log.
like : fd5dd389-7acb-11e8-88cd-54ee75515403-Delete

---

This change is 

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.08%) to 51.398% when pulling 602ff4e on fix/UB-1325_adda_action_name_to_the_logs into 250d071 on dev.

[shay-berman]

Review status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @olgashtivelman and @shay-berman)

---

utils/logs/go_logging_logger.go, line 86 at r3 (raw file):

	if l.params.ShowGoid{
		return fmt.Sprintf("%s:%d-%s", new_context.Id, go_id, new_context.ActionName)

whats happen if action name not given in the context?
I think we should succeed to work but without show the action name.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[olgashtivelman]

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @olgashtivelman and @shay-berman)

---

utils/logs/go_logging_logger.go, line 86 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

whats happen if action name not given in the context?
I think we should succeed to work but without show the action name.

a struct will always have a default value to parameters it will just be empty. do you mean that you have a problem with it looking like : "id-" ?

[shay-berman]

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shay-berman)

---

utils/logs/go_logging_logger.go, line 86 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, olgashtivelman wrote…

a struct will always have a default value to parameters it will just be empty. do you mean that you have a problem with it looking like : "id-" ?

yes it may be strange
but also what if old ubiquity flex will work with the new ubiqutiy server.
we need to think if we have some issue in that use case.

[olgashtivelman]

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @olgashtivelman)

---

utils/logs/go_logging_logger.go, line 86 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

yes it may be strange
but also what if old ubiquity flex will work with the new ubiqutiy server.
we need to think if we have some issue in that use case.

@shay-berman OK but I don't understand what it is that you want me to change. do you want to check if the action name is not empty and if it is to set it to NA?

do we support old ubiquity-flex with new ubiquity server?
is anyone checking this?
there were other changes with the logging which assume that flex+ubiquity are in sync. also the requests are different so how can this be supported at all?

[olgashtivelman]

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shay-berman)

---

utils/logs/go_logging_logger.go, line 86 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, olgashtivelman wrote…

@shay-berman OK but I don't understand what it is that you want me to change. do you want to check if the action name is not empty and if it is to set it to NA?

do we support old ubiquity-flex with new ubiquity server?
is anyone checking this?
there were other changes with the logging which assume that flex+ubiquity are in sync. also the requests are different so how can this be supported at all?

Done.

[shay-berman]

Reviewed 2 of 6 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved