I see different ways to use Structlog and I was wondering what the exact difference is.
Let's say I want to log something using Structlog, you could for example use:
logger.msg("My log message")
But there are other ways to log, like info, debug (as in the standard Python logging library) which give you the possibility to say something about the importance of a message (which you can filter using loglevel):
logger.info("This is an info message")
logger.debug("This is a debug message")
The question is: what is the advantage of using logger.msg as compared to the other ways to log like info and debug? Why would I choose logger.msg?
msg() is a remnant from the original generic BoundLogger that tried to have both stdlib and Twisted log methods (msg() hailing from the Twisted end).
If you use structlog's internal filtering system via structlog.make_filtering_bound_logger(), it's equivalent to the info log level.
You can safely ignore it.
Related
in my project i am using the logging module and write the logs into a local .log file, in addition i want to pass the same log to another function to document locally the logs with circular queue algorithm.
it is possible to configure the logger to do it?
thanks .
the currnet logging config
logger=logging.getLogger(__name__)
logger.setLevel(logging.DEBUG)
formatter=logging.Formatter("<SOME FORMAT>")
file_handler=logging.FileHandler('logfile.log')
file_handler.setFormatter(formatter)
logger.addHandler(file_handler)
!! UPDATE : SOLVED - #imriqwe answer here https://stackoverflow.com/a/36408692 helped me to figure it.
I think this thread Python logging to multiple handlers, at different log levels? answers your question, it shows how to add multiple handlers, one file handler and one stream handler.
I wonder what the best practices are with using StructuredArguments inside logging calls when using logstash-logback-encoder to log in JSON format.
I want to log some structured arguments in separate fields, but I don't want to format these arguments into the literal string message.
If I write my log lines like this, everything works fine as I want to, but both my IntelliJ IDEA and Sonarqube static code analysis considers this problematic issues:
log.info("Query executed successfully!", StructuredArguments.value("hits", result.getHits()));
(or more concise)
log.info("Query executed successfully!", v("hits", result.getHits()));
IntelliJ warns this on this line:
more arguments provided (1) than placeholders specified (0)
How can I avoid this? Of course I can silence the warnings and add exceptions for them, but I wonder if that is a best practice.
If you don't want to include the data inside the log message, and want to avoid the static analysis warnings, use Markers instead of StructuredArguments:
import net.logstash.logback.marker.Markers;
log.info(Markers.append("hits", result.getHits()), "Query executed successfully!");
See here for more details.
I'm currently trying to get a test running on Katalon Studio, and the specific outcome is determined by certain messages showing up in the browser console. I've managed to extract the console logs and can parse them easily enough, but I'm currently only being given the Severe and Warning messages, while the information I need is in the Info messages.
I've managed to figure out what settings I need to apply, but not in a format that I can easily apply via Katalon. The settings I need are, I believe, as follows:
DesiredCapabilities caps = DesiredCapabilities.chrome()
LoggingPreferences logPrefs = new LoggingPreferences()
logPrefs.enable(LogType.BROWSER, Level.INFO)
caps.setCapability(CapabilityType.LOGGING_PREFS, logPrefs)
Specifically, I need to set the log level to INFO. However, I can't figure out how to correctly apply this through Katalon's Execution settings, which take on a rather different format to most of the code-based variants I've seen elsewhere. I've currently got{"CHROME_DRIVER":{"LoggingPrefs":{"LogType":"BROWSER","Level":"INFO"}}} set in the com.kms.katalon.core.webui.chrome preferences file, and have tried different variants of this, but to no avail.
Just in case this is an extraction problem rather than a setup issue, I'm currently obtaining the logs as follows:
I obtain the webdriver using DriverFactory.getWebDriver(), and extract the logs using LogEntries logs = driver.manage().logs().get("browser")
How do I get the Info-level logs out of this?
Thanks for your time and help,
You can use KeywordLogger.
Following class is needed: import com.kms.katalon.core.logging.KeywordLogger
KeywordLogger log = new KeywordLogger()
log.logInfo("yourLogMsg")
You can use logFailed, logWarning, etc. too.
Can I catch the failures found by py.test ? I would like to build a log where I will write the numbers of failures and also the OS tested.
You can log a machine readable result file for this purpose using:
py.test --resultlog=path
Documentation is available here. This file is what many other tools use to inspect the output of a py.test run and, for example, compare results between different runs.
Apart from --resultlog which #srowland showed, you can also use --junitxml to write a JUnit XML file, or write your own plugin to log in a custom format.
I have certain errors which I set in my code, which should add corresponding error messages to the email content of the final build email.
I was thinking of printing something such as ("EMAIL CONTENT ERROR: _______") to the console, reading through it (in a pre-send groovy script?), and adding corresponding error messages for each error found.
I was thinking of using a pre-send groovy script, setting the mimeMessage object(was reading jenkins email-ext documentation). Would this be viable?
Also, I have never used groovy before, so pointers to how to approach this would be extremely helpful(or a link to where i can find an implementation of something with a similar idea of reading console). Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Can you check attaching "Build Log" This would highlight all the process of build process.
This is a very similar concept to the question here. The technique there was to use the log parser plugin to scan the console output for you, and then use groovy to add all the errors into an email.
This is generally a pretty good idea because it also means that you can view the same set of highlighted errors from jenkins itself, rather than just the email.
There are a couple of ways this is different from your setup, the main points are:
Yes, write errors directly to the console in a known format
Set the log parser up with regular expressions that find your error format
Instead of a pre-send script, in this case you would use a groovy template for your email generation
The template reads the error list from the console parser and adds them to your email. Each one is a link that links back to the jenkins console output.