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
TaggedLogging to return a new logger instance #27792
Conversation
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rails team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @arthurnn (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. This repository is being automatically checked for code quality issues using Code Climate. You can see results for this analysis in the PR status below. Newly introduced issues should be fixed before a Pull Request is considered ready to review. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
I agree that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM too. A CHANGELOG entry will be required since this may be a breaking change.
logger = logger.dup | ||
|
||
logger.formatter = if logger.formatter | ||
logger.formatter.dup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Those lines should be aligned with the if
. Rubocop is complaining.
b58af1f
to
4a7ff05
Compare
Updated, tell me if you are good with the changes. |
Does this risk multiplying the number of live logger instances we have in an application? That seems like it could affect what gets silenced, for example. |
My thought of chain on this is when calling I think it's a fair concern, and to some extent I would consider setting my I think it would be possible to come up with a mutating method that is not named
Definitely (it's a new instance after all, unless But once again, I think this is expected from a method that is called As proposed up there, if one was to use a lot of tagged logging in his application, I think it would be fair to consider setting it as the default logger. In the cases where I wanted to use tagged logging, the desired behaviour was to do a Eg.: A fairly simple example class Object
def method_a
logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(Rails.logger)
logger.tagged("BCX") do
logger.info "something" # I expected this to be tagged
method_b
end
end
def method_b
Rails.logger.info "something else" # I do not expect this to be tagged
end
end |
4a7ff05
to
62fba74
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Still relevant in Rails 6 28e5085. I'll admit that when I first saw the source for ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new
I thought it was being too clever. If we want to keep the mutation approach, could we just rename the new
method to something more explanatory?
TaggedLogging to return a new logger instance
TaggedLogging to return a new logger instance rails/rails#27792
Tagged logger return a new logger instance now: rails/rails#27792
@@ -57,8 +57,15 @@ def tags_text | |||
end | |||
|
|||
def self.new(logger) | |||
# Ensure we set a default formatter so we aren't extending nil! | |||
logger.formatter ||= ActiveSupport::Logger::SimpleFormatter.new | |||
logger = logger.dup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any special reason #dup
was used here? I have opened #40759 to address a side-effect of not using #clone
.
Summary
I have a small question and what is better than a PR to discuss it.
ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging
through thenew
method would mutate the argument instead of returning a new instance. This might be my design but it really got me confused at first. I would have expected some other kind of method to provide such mutation (eg.:ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.tag(logger)
)The changes in here would clone the logger received in argument (and the associated formatter that
ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging
perform on) returning a new instance.The associated test is what made me really confused the first time I hit the original behaviour.
Todo: