Import Psr LogLevel

[harikt]

Q	A
Doc fix?	yes
New feature?	no
BC breaks?	no
Deprecations?	no
License	MIT

A question regarding the output, by default the o/p was not shown to me, and it introduced a bit of confusion whether it is working or not until I read the verbosity .

Is there a way we can improve the same ?

[javiereguiluz]

@harikt thanks for seding this improvement. I have several questions myself:

1. You imported Psr\Log\LogLevel but the examples use more classes (for instance, OutputInterface). Should we import all used classes to make the examples complete or is that too much?

2. Regarding the output, I think the article explains the situation well: "Depending on the verbosity level that the command is run, messages may or may not be sent to the OutputInterface instance." Anyway, maybe we should be more clear about which verbosity level starts sending the logs to the console output?

[harikt]

Hey @javiereguiluz ,

Thank you for your questions. I will try to quote and reply back.

You imported Psr\Log\LogLevel but the examples use more classes (for instance, OutputInterface). Should we import all used classes to make the examples complete or is that too much?

What normally try to do is follow the tutorial code I guess. In that we already have imported the OutputInterface or they can even do a search for OutputInterface in case they need.

But the LogLevel was entirely missing and even I know about psr-3 logger I never had a look at that class. So was wondering from where it was coming until I have to search.

2. Regarding the output, I think the article explains the situation well: "Depending on the verbosity level that the command is run, messages may or may not be sent to the OutputInterface instance." Anyway, maybe we should be more clear about which verbosity level starts sending the logs to the console output?

Ya, but the explanation is after the example that makes people debugging it as I did ;) .

May be it need to be moved up before the example.

Thank you.

[xabbuh]

I think we should just move the use statement before the existing placeholder. Then can save the second one.

[harikt]

@xabbuh why I added it was for everyone knows there is something up and down. Still if you feel I will move .

[xabbuh]

I don't have hard feelings about this, but imho the duplicated placeholder doesn't add any value. People will soon realise anyway that the example is not complete. :)

[xabbuh]

For the rest, I agree with @harikt. The change at all makes sense to me. 👍

[harikt]

@xabbuh I have fixed it.

Thank you.

[xabbuh]

👍

[wouterj]

I agree with @harikt too, so let's merge :) I've added an empty line after the folding comment (see 8b8ba03), to make things just a little bit easier to read. Thanks for adding this missing bit @harikt!

[harikt]

You are welcome :) .