I have not. I was going to start looking at shutdown while waiting for consensus on 1 v 2 log configurations. How do you want to proceed? We can do it together.
On November 3, 2016 at 11:43:24, Ryan Merriman (merrim...@gmail.com) wrote: Otto, have you started on any of this yet? Was thinking I would start with getting the log levels consistent and dig into the shutdown issues. Then we can iterate from there. Ryan On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Ryan Merriman <merrim...@gmail.com> wrote: > I vote for 1 logging configuration (ERROR only). Why do we want different > logging in Travis vs local? If you are working on a specific component and > need more verbose logging, temporarily change the log level to INFO for > that component. If we get the logging in shape this will be easy to do. > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:13 PM >> <http://airmail.calendar/2016-10-28%2015:13:00%20EDT>, David Lyle < >> dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I think you noticed the main problem with turning logging off entirely. >> > >> > I'd be inclined to have two files: one which defaults to INFO and >> another >> > that defaults to ERROR for Travis. We can give a >> -Dlog4j.configuration=file:log4j.config.set.to.ERROR.only >> > for travis, which I think Otto suggested. >> >> So - >> * one jira to fix the component shutdowns ( I’ll take a stab unless you >> are >> already on it ) >> * one jira to have travis run with a second configuration ( be it >> literally >> a second file or something else ) set to error only >> >> >> >> >> On November 2, 2016 at 13:51:28, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> What would be in the two different logging properties? >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > What about having two logging configurations? One just for travis, and >> > one pretty much what there is now ( the teardown stuff still has to be >> > sorted out ). Maybe Travis can be scripted to put the right logging >> > properties files in place? >> > >> > >> > On November 2, 2016 at 12:42:09, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) >> wrote: >> > >> > I haven't seen a JIRA about this yet. IMHO, I think a good first-pass >> > would be: >> > * We have a lot of ERROR level logging that happens because during >> teardown >> > of the in memory components that could be fixed by tearing down >> components >> > in the right order (possibly). >> > * Teardown in some of our integration tests don't seem to get called if >> the >> > tests fail, this causes cascading errors to happen ( the next test won't >> > start because it can't start the components), so ensuring teardown >> happens >> > in a finally block would be good >> > * If there are chatty components that are inappropriately logging, we >> can >> > adjust the logging level on a per-package basis. Tender balance between >> > suppressing valuable output and chattiness would ahve to be made (and >> > probably discussed as part of a JIRA). >> > >> > In retrospect, after considering this after the previous discussion on >> the >> > dev list, I would not be in favor of logging to a file. It is important >> to >> > see those logs on the travis output to help with quick-debugging help >> and >> > we'd be setting ourselves up to be non-standard as well. I'd rather see >> a >> > more directed and surgical effort. >> > >> > That's just my $0.02, though. I'd welcome a JIRA (or multiple JIRAs) to >> > tackle logging. >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Did a jira for this actually get created? I would be willing to help >> work >> > > on getting the logs setup for what they need to be for travis and for >> > > local. Did we settle on an approach? Is there work ongoing that could >> use >> > > some dev or testing help? >> > > >> > >> > >> > >
