Jan Damborsky wrote: > Glenn Lagasse wrote: >> * Karen Tung (Karen.Tung at Sun.COM) wrote: >> > >>>> Does this mean that the above would also get printed to the >>>> screen? If so, I think it's too long and confusing. >>>> How about if this was only printed to the detailed log and >>>> something simpler to the simple log and the screen? >>>> >>>> Jean >>> Depending on how we do it, we can certainly only print the command >>> to the detail log, and not to >>> the screen or the simple log at all. Even just printing them to the >>> detail log, I am not sure whether all >>> the extra output will confuse people and let other useful data be >>> missed. >> >> We've already got one report that it's confusing. Erik Lafever ran into >> this while doing DC regression testing for VMC. > > Do you happen to know, what was the reason those messages were found > confusing - was it due to the misleading prefix or were there other > reasons ? They were following a pkg: prefix and I was looking at them in a terminal window which was wrapping the message over several lines. This was followed by a Traceback that was hiding the string that I was looking for which identified the root cause of the failure. I have a test that inserts a package name (which does not exist on the publisher) into the pkg list. The error that used to be in the logs identified the package that was causing the problem. Now there is a Traceback that reports a general error without identifying the package that was the problem. This is seen the the VMC bits when regression testing DC.
-Erik > > Jan > > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
