[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10315?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Zhenhao Li updated CLOUDSTACK-10315:
------------------------------------
Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug)
> Inconsistent debugging info in catch block
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-10315
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-10315
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Reporter: Zhenhao Li
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: easyfix
> Attachments: image-2018-03-05-09-59-19-369.png,
> image-2018-03-05-10-14-00-552.png, image-2018-03-05-10-14-25-802.png,
> image-2018-03-26-17-45-44-489.png
>
>
> We found that some logging statements have same log message, but one of them
> has stack trace info, the other one of them doesn't have. Maybe a possible
> reason is that they are code clone, developers changed one of them(add stack
> trace info) but forgot to change the other one. Here's the details of those
> logging statements we found:
>
> 1.*"Moving on to the next host because " + h.toString() + " is unavailable"*,
> _com.cloud.hypervisor.ovm3.resources.Ovm3FenceBuilder.*fenceOff()*,_
> _com.cloud.ha.SimulatorFencer.*fenceOff()*_,
> There are two identical log messages in these two places, the previous one
> logged stack trace:
> !image-2018-03-26-17-45-44-489.png!
> But the latter one did not:
> !image-2018-03-05-09-59-19-369.png!
> We can see that they are in different type of catch block, but when checking
> the logs they generated, maybe it's impossible to know the difference of them
> without stack trace. So maybe the stack traces info should also be added here?
>
> 2.*"Network rule Conflict"*
> _org.apache.cloudstack.api.command.user.firewall.CreatePortForwardingRuleCmd.*create()*,_
> _org.apache.cloudstack.api.command.user.firewall.CreateFirewallRuleCmd.*create()*_
>
> The previous one has these two logging statements:
> s_logger.info("Network rule conflict: ", ex);
> s_logger.trace("Network Rule Conflict: ", ex);
>
> Comparing to the latter one which contains:
> s_logger.info("Network rule conflict: " + ex.getMessage());
> s_logger.trace("Network Rule Conflict: ", ex);
> Maybe it's better to have consistent exception handling here?
>
> 3.*"Failed to take snapshot: "*
> _org.apache.cloudstack.storage.snapshot.SnapshotServiceImpl.*takeSnapshot()*,_
> _org.apache.cloudstack.storage.datastore.driver.ElastistorPrimaryDataStoreDriver.*takeSnapshot()*_
> The previous one has catch block:
> !image-2018-03-05-10-14-00-552.png!
> and the latter one:
> !image-2018-03-05-10-14-25-802.png!
> We can see that the code snippers are almost the same except the logging
> statements.
> Will it be better to change the latter one, to be consistent with the
> previous one?
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
