[pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox v2 1/4] log: rename/move init functions

[Wolfgang Bumiller]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:22:44AM +0100, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:42:35PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > On 10.02.2025 15:37, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 11:46:03AM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> > > > +/// Inits a new tracing logger that prints to stderr or tasklog with the logging level specified in the
> > > > +/// environment variable `env_var`.
> > > > +///
> > > > +/// This logger is task-aware, which means if we are in a PBS task, we will retrieve the task-file
> > > > +/// and write to it. We'll only write to stderr if we are not in a task. If `env_var` doesn't exist
> > > > +/// or can't be read, use the `default_log_level`. The output will be very plain: no ansi, no
> > > > +/// timestamp, no level, just the message and it's
> > > > +/// fields.
> > > > +pub fn stderr_or_tasklog(
> > > > +    env_var: &str,
> > > > +    default_log_level: LevelFilter,
> > > > +) -> Result<(), anyhow::Error> {
> > > > +    let log_level = get_env_variable(env_var, default_log_level);
> > > > +
> > > > +    let registry = tracing_subscriber::registry()
> > > > +        .with(
> > > > +            plain_stderr_layer()
> > > > +                .with_filter(filter_fn(|_metadata| !LogContext::exists()))
> > > 
> > > ^ This condition misses the `Level::ERROR` comparison while being
> > > suggested as a replacement for `init_cli_logger` which had it (not
> > > visible in the patch context lines, but it's there).
> > > If this is done on purpose, please explain it in the commit message.
> > 
> > Oops, yeah my bad, this should be
> > 
> >     !LogContext::exists() || *metadata.level() == Level::ERROR
> > 
> > What do you think about the rest of the patch? I tried to implement this
> > with a builder pattern as well, but it turned out to be quite tricky
> > moving the layers around so I just wrote a ton of functions with long
> > names :(
> 
> The rest seems fine.
> It does look like it should be mostly a builder-pattern thing (as it
> kind of already is, with the final 2 lines being a kind of `.apply()`,
> but with the names being showing their intended use, it's fine for an
> `init` module to have specific common setups like this (`init_cli_…`,
> `…with_pve_format`, etc.)
> 
> Perhaps the journal/tasklog one could be named "init_daemon_log" (or
> just have an alias under that name)...

Sorry, I was reading it backwards, we're getting rid of those names...
That just goes to show I didn't properly think about this... :-)

Now, first of all, having the "descriptive" names there makes sense.
With the `pve` specific function we then still have a rather specific
one.
Therefore, with a specific `init` module, it would IMO be fine to have
situation-specific names for common setups.

Unless we can actually come up with a builder-pattern variant.
Perhaps it would have to be the Layer type rather than the subscriber
we'd need to turn into a builder, while having its final "apply" create
the subscriber and register it and initialize the LogTracer.