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

Logging facilities listed twice for twice the confusion #240

Closed
ZenGround0 opened this issue Nov 15, 2017 · 1 comment
Closed

Logging facilities listed twice for twice the confusion #240

ZenGround0 opened this issue Nov 15, 2017 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful P3 Low: Not priority right now

Comments

@ZenGround0
Copy link
Collaborator

It took me too long to figure out why I was not seeing log output after adding a new facility in logging.go. Turns out there is another list of facilities in ipfs-cluster-service/main.go that only applies in the case the debug flag is not passed in. The two lists should be consolidated so that facilities need to be added only once. This should be a pretty quick fix.

@ZenGround0 ZenGround0 added kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) exp/novice Someone with a little familiarity can pick up help wanted Seeking public contribution on this issue P3 Low: Not priority right now status/ready Ready to be worked labels Nov 15, 2017
@hsanjuan
Copy link
Collaborator

actually one is internal and used for controlling the output during testing and the other one is more user-facing. I would have to think if consolidating both has a downside in this regard.

@ZenGround0 ZenGround0 added exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful and removed kind/bug A bug in existing code (including security flaws) exp/novice Someone with a little familiarity can pick up help wanted Seeking public contribution on this issue labels Nov 15, 2017
@hsanjuan hsanjuan self-assigned this Jan 11, 2018
@hsanjuan hsanjuan added status/in-progress In progress and removed status/ready Ready to be worked labels Jan 11, 2018
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2018
This puts some sanity in this. It's not super correct (name of facilities
depend of the component and the main cluster component should not hard
code them), but it's clear enough. Imho, better than over-engineering
a more elegant approach.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
@hsanjuan hsanjuan added need/review Needs a review and removed status/in-progress In progress labels Jan 11, 2018
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 11, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2018
This puts some sanity in this. It's not super correct (name of facilities
depend of the component and the main cluster component should not hard
code them), but it's clear enough. Imho, better than over-engineering
a more elegant approach.

License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 15, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2018
License: MIT
Signed-off-by: Hector Sanjuan <code@hector.link>
hsanjuan added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2018
Fix #240: Avoid duplicated list of facilities
@ghost ghost removed the need/review Needs a review label Jan 16, 2018
@hsanjuan hsanjuan mentioned this issue Jan 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
exp/intermediate Prior experience is likely helpful P3 Low: Not priority right now
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants