[Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests (original) (raw)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Dec 8 15:54:09 CET 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antoine Pitrou <solipsis pitrou.net> writes:
I'm not talking specifically about exceptions, but about errors in general. If the case wasn't common, I'm not sure why the error() and critical() methods would exist at all.
(of course I'm assuming error() is meant to output error messages. If that's a wrong interpretation then I'm a bit puzzled )
Then again, it's not always helpful when library code prints out messages to stderr. A user of the library might prefer that an error code be returned or an exception raised, so they can deal with the condition most appropriately.
I was talking about the user of a library, not its developer (see the snippet quoted above).
Yes, but see my response to that. A user of a library doesn't need to know the specifics of what loggers that library uses, they just need to make a positive statement of where they want warning and error messages go, and how they want them formatted.
BTW we haven't discussed this yet - but these enabled-by-default messages, what format should they have? (e.g. just message, logger name + message, logger name
- severity + message etc.) It might sound like a trivial point, but it also seems like whatever you pick, some bikeshed discussions would ensue. At present, the developer is encouraged to choose (as they have to call basicConfig anyway), avoiding that bikeshedding altogether.
The thing is, they don't want to configure them, but you force them to do some configuration if they don't want error messages to be silenced.
True, but it need be no more than a call to basicConfig(), so "not too inconvenient" ;-)
Sure. What I'm arguing is that the warnings module's default behaviour is much more useful than the logging module's default behaviour.
Sure, that's what we're discussing, all right.
That's why I was asked to add warnings integration to logging - to redirect warning messages to logging. That's a separate topic :)
If you say so ;-)
(b) For this case, since there's no telepathy in this world, you need some way for the programmer to communicate their intent about the logging level, or format string, or log file that they want to use. Well, the programmer doesn't have to communicate their intent about what and how warnings get displayed by default, and I'm not sure the warnings module has a telepathy routine inside (although you never know, since IIRC Brett did some philosophy studies).
See my earlier comment about formatting and the potential for bikeshedding ;-)
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Using logging in the stdlib and its unit tests
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]