Skip to content

Conversation

@Arunodoy18
Copy link
Contributor

The root logger level was hardcoded to INFO instead of respecting the configured logging_level setting. This caused user task code using logging.getLogger(name).info() to not show up in task logs unless the log level was artificially high (e.g. level 55).

Changes:

  • Set root logger level to log_level.upper() instead of hardcoded INFO

  • Add tests verifying root logger respects configured log level

  • Add test for INFO level filtering (DEBUG messages not shown)

This restores the behavior from Airflow 2.x where logger.info() worked as documented.

The root logger level was hardcoded to INFO instead of respecting the configured logging_level setting. This caused user task code using logging.getLogger(__name__).info() to not show up in task logs unless the log level was artificially high (e.g. level 55).

Changes:

- Set root logger level to log_level.upper() instead of hardcoded INFO

- Add tests verifying root logger respects configured log level

- Add test for INFO level filtering (DEBUG messages not shown)

This restores the behavior from Airflow 2.x where logger.info() worked as documented.
@Arunodoy18
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey, I did some small changes regarding the issue , Please review this and in any case if there is any misconduct or error please do tell me for the follow up, Regards
Thank you.

Copy link
Member

@potiuk potiuk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. But maybe there was some more thinking behind hardcoding it @ashb ?

@@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ def is_atty():
)
config["root"] = {
"handlers": ["default"],
"level": "INFO",
"level": log_level.upper(),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks ok but you mention in the PR description that the logs with INFO didn't show up -- but if this is hardcoded to INFO -- the info logs should have shown.

Could you confirm please

Copy link
Contributor

@amoghrajesh amoghrajesh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks fine but could you clarify @kaxil's qn?

@kaxil
Copy link
Member

kaxil commented Jan 5, 2026

@Arunodoy18 I am going to close your PRs -- Please review and test your changes with correct PR description. Using LLMs without those increase maintenance burdens and CI run time.

Feel free to recreate focussed PRs following those guidelines.

@kaxil kaxil closed this Jan 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants