On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 04:05:41AM -0400, Nithya Balachandran wrote:
<snip>
> The DHT_LOOKUP_FAILED message id will be part of the log message and
> that alone can be documented . Eg:
> DHT_LOOKUP_FAILED
> Value : 10234
> Description: The DHT lookup failed etc etc...
> Cause: The lookup can fail for the following reasons:
> ...
> Possible actions:
> Check if the subvolume is up...
> etc etc
>
> The admin can search for the particular msg id (Eg: 10234)in the logs
> and get additional info for the same instead of trying to match
> a particular string.
>
>
> The other question is whether log messages need to be localized - my
> understanding is that they are mainly intended for dev and sys admins
> who are assumed to know sufficient english to be able to use them.
> I am not aware of any projects that localize logs( but could be wrong
> so please point me to any you know of). Localizing log messages would
> make things difficult for a developer in case s/he is sent ,say,a
> French log file but does not know French- trying to figure out what
> went wrong would be very difficult.
>
> The point for localization is very valid and necessary for UI like
> management consoles etc but perhaps not for a log file.
Localized logging is only a minor issue when each log-entry is
identified by a unique ID (listed as Value in the example above).
A catalog with all log-IDs would need to be provided, hopefully one
catalog per language.
Translating logs would be an option, mapping log-entries from one
language to an other is possible. It will be less convenient for
developers and support engineers, but maybe it weighs up against the
requests from users?
Niels
>
> Regards,
> Nithya
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kaushal M" <kshlmster at gmail.com>
> To: gluster-devel at gluster.org
> Cc: "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:15:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Glusterfs and the new logging framework
>
> Why not just have the macro names be meaningful? This would help a lot
> for a developer who is reading the code.
> For example, instead of a macro of the format
> #define something_msg_1 (BUMP_MSG_ID) ''Some message string''
> have it as
> #define descriptive_name (BUMP_MSG_ID) "Some message string"
>
> This should help the developers, while keeping the i18n concerns satisfied.
>
> ~kaushal
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa
> <rgowdapp at redhat.com> wrote:
> > (Moving the discussion to gluster-devel).
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana" <nsathyan at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>, "Susant Palai" <spalai at redhat.com>, "Atin Mukherjee"
> >> <amukherj at redhat.com>, "Varun Shastry" <vshastry at redhat.com>, "Krishnan Parthasarathi" <kparthas at redhat.com>,
> >> "Ravishankar Narayanankutty" <ranaraya at redhat.com>, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>, "Venkatesh
> >> Somyajulu" <vsomyaju at redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:53:55 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Glusterfs and the new logging framework
> >>
> >> It is a very valuable suggestion Nithya. Using descriptive message IDs
> >> (DHT_GET_CACHED_SUBVOL_FAILED in place of dht_msg_1) is definitely helpful
> >> to developers and improves the code readability. However, IMO, keeping the
> >> actual formatted message string in a header file is a good practice. Some
> >> of the reasons for it are;
> >>
> >> A> It helps in internationalization and localization at later point.
> >> B> Any changes to the message & the formatting is easy to handle when it is
> >> not embedded in the log function call.
> >>
> >> Please discuss this with wider audience, including Vijay & Alok, before
> >> finalizing the approach.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Naga
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com>
> >> To: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>, "Susant Palai"
> >> <spalai at redhat.com>, "Atin Mukherjee" <amukherj at redhat.com>, "Varun Shastry"
> >> <vshastry at redhat.com>, "Krishnan Parthasarathi" <kparthas at redhat.com>,
> >> "Ravishankar Narayanankutty" <ranaraya at redhat.com>, "Pranith Kumar
> >> Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>, "Venkatesh Somyajulu"
> >> <vsomyaju at redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "Nagaprasad Sathyanarayana" <nsathyan at redhat.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:16:37 AM
> >> Subject: Glusterfs and the new logging framework
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am currently working on porting the DHT messages to the new logging
> >> framework and I have some observations/concerns about the approach on the
> >> same:
> >>
> >> 1. With the current approach, a call to gf_msg would look like:
> >>
> >> gf_msg ("dht", GF_LOG_ERROR, 0, dht_msg_1, param1);
> >>
> >> This provides little information to the developer when going through the
> >> code. It becomes tedious to lookup the value of dht_msg_4 each time. This
> >> also reduces code readability as the format string is not available
> >> instantly and can potentially cause issues with incorrect parameters being
> >> passed to the call.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. Adding new messages can potentially cause us to use up the chunk of
> >> message ids quickly. A better approach would be to decouple the is
> >> definition from the actual message string.There are be several potential
> >> messages for a single operation state.Message formats might change in the
> >> future as we add enhancements - for eg, we shouldn't have to add new
> >> messages with new message ids to accommodate an additional parameter if we
> >> change a struct definition, say. Defining some sort of "state ids" however
> >> will take up fewer ids.
> >>
> >> Eg: The code has the following messages :
> >>
> >> "Failed to get cached subvol for %s"
> >> "Failed to get cached subvol for %s on %s"
> >>
> >>
> >> Both the above will require separate msg-ids with the current approach. The
> >> difference in the strings is minimal and does not really provide any
> >> additional information from the Doxygen doc point of view.
> >>
> >> Another approach would be to define a DHT_GET_CACHED_SUBVOL_FAILED id which
> >> can be passed to the msglog, while the actual message string can change
> >> depending on what the developer thinks will be helpful. This will also
> >> improve code readability.
> >>
> >> So I propose that we do the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> Current approach:
> >>
> >> Messages file:
> >>
> >> #define dht_msg_1 (GLFS_COM_BASE + 1) , "Failed to get cached subvol for %s"
> >> #define dht_msg_2 (GLFS_COM_BASE + 2) , "Failed to get cached subvol for %s
> >> on %s"
> >> #define dht_msg_3 (GLFS_COM_BASE + 3) , "Failed to get hashed subvol " ...etc
> >> etc
> >>
> >> Code :
> >> gf_msg ("dht", GF_LOG_ERROR, 0, dht_msg_1, param1);
> >>
> >> gf_msg ("dht", GF_LOG_ERROR, 0, dht_msg_2, param1, param2);
> >>
> >> The above is confusing for a developer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Proposed approach:
> >>
> >> #define DHT_GET_CACHED_SUBVOL_FAILED (GLFS_COM_BASE + 1)
> >> #define DHT_GET_HASHED_SUBVOL_FAILED (GLFS_COM_BASE + 2)
> >>
> >> gf_msg ("dht", GF_LOG_ERROR, 0, DHT_GET_CACHED_SUBVOL_FAILED, "Failed to get
> >> cached subvol for %s on %s" , param1, param2);
> >>
> >> gf_msg ("dht", GF_LOG_ERROR, 0, DHT_GET_CACHED_SUBVOL_FAILED, "Failed to get
> >> cached subvol for %s " , param1);
> >>
> >>
> >> Advantages:
> >> Much clearer code - developer can use generated id or define new one easily.
> >> Related ids can be grouped together in the header file.
> >> Fewer ids required
> >> No changes to the logging framework
> >> Messages can change later
> >> The approach of using and id and generating a doxygen doc for the same still
> >> holds good - we are simply decoupling the actual string from the definition.
> >> So the doc would still have the message id and a description of the
> >> condition it specifies without tying it to a string that might change later.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Nithya
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-devel mailing list
> > Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> > http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
