Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dispersy errors not in stderr #50

Closed
NielsZeilemaker opened this issue Oct 29, 2013 · 7 comments
Closed

Dispersy errors not in stderr #50

NielsZeilemaker opened this issue Oct 29, 2013 · 7 comments
Assignees

Comments

@NielsZeilemaker
Copy link
Contributor

Even though the exception was logged with the ERROR level, it did not show up in stderr.

2013-10-29 11:59:10+0100 [-] ERROR 1383044350.34 callback:214 reassessing as fatal exception, attempting proper shutdown

@boudewijn-tribler
Copy link

Is this using the latest devel? Since commit 91cb359 Dispersy is no longer configuring the logger itself (unless tool/main.py is used). It Gumby importing the library before configuring the logger?

@NielsZeilemaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

No clue, i'm branching of your private-search branch as that was the most up to date version upon i'm building.

I think because it's actually reporting with the ERROR prefix it's a gumby error and not a dispersy one.
Hence the ticket in gumby and not in Dispersy.

Btw, it's not a 2x configuration problem as I am actually seeing this line in the stdout file. Calling the configuration twice disables any output.

@boudewijn-tribler
Copy link

The private-search branch you are referring to does not yet have commit 91cb359, so it is configuring itself (both the basicConfig and the fileConfig).

I am not sure if it will solve the problem, but I can cherry pick 91cb359 and push it to private-search if you believe it would be helpful.

@NielsZeilemaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

It will not, this is a gumby problem not a Dispersy problem.

@ghost ghost assigned whirm Nov 13, 2013
@whirm
Copy link
Contributor

whirm commented Nov 14, 2013

@NielsZeilemaker check out if my "logging" branch works for you

@whirm whirm closed this as completed Nov 18, 2013
@NielsZeilemaker
Copy link
Contributor Author

Did you test/verify it yourself?

@whirm
Copy link
Contributor

whirm commented Nov 18, 2013

It was working fine with my dummy tests, do you have any problem with you experiment?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants