-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 287
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Logging fixes #4106
Logging fixes #4106
Conversation
Useful improvements you've made here. Don't want to undermine the work here, but I think the test changes are looking messy. |
3cf6662 Does this help at all?
bfbed13 I can confirm from local testing that this addresses the issue you originally identified.
I get what you're saying, however this area is new to us and we have addressed all issues we've encountered so far. No problem IMO. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Don't want to undermine the work here, but I think the test changes are looking messy.
3cf6662 Does this help at all?
I really meant the way we formerly had extra code to 'exercise' the logging before capturing + checking it.
So that is all squared away now 👍
Would you consider incorporating into this PR the above extension to the assertLogs method ??
bfbed13 I can confirm from local testing that this addresses the issue you originally identified.
Brilliant, thanks ! 💐
I do still have some concerns about the completeness of that aproach, though
I get what you're saying, however this area is new to us and we have addressed all issues
we've encountered so far. No problem IMO.
👍 I like your approach 😁
One thing that does still jar here, for me, is the repetition of the check_log
method : we now have 4 copies (!)
I was very close to adding that (i.e. the regex check) into the new-version assertLogs
, but I felt it was perhaps too much in one.
But what the hell, why not add an optional keyword like 'message_regex' + integrate the two?
The only snag, IMO, is that it only applies when you're expecting a single logged message. But naming/documentation can just allow for that.
See my suggestions (only partial changes : you will need to replace all the check_log
s with assertLogs
changes)
How does that way look to you @trexfeathers ?
Very nice idea @pp-mo! 5a997d3 should take care of this - involved a fair amount of refactoring but the result is simpler, a little more akin to |
This all seems good to me now. |
🚀 Pull Request
Description
Improvements to all uses of logging in
experimental.ugrid
, following recent team discoveries.Consult Iris pull request check list