[Pulp-dev] pulp3 exception logging

[Michael Hrivnak]

I also generally like the current behavior. But for non-fatal exceptions,
I'd rather think about them not like exceptions, but just as errors to
report. A user probably shouldn't see a stack trace for something
non-fatal. Even for fatal errors that we can anticipate (disk full for
example), a user probably should not see a stack trace or python exception.
And whether the error condition was encountered by way of an exception, or
some other way (non-2xx http response code perhaps), is not important to
how it gets reported to the user.

It's better to think in terms of: something didn't go as well as we hoped;
what does a user need to know about it? Let's make sure we can report that,
and do so without talking about python exceptions unless there's no other
choice.

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com> wrote:

> The tasking system in Pulp 3 supports recording non fatal exceptions in
> the database. Unhandled (fatal) exceptions are also recorded in the
> database. Both types of exceptions appear in the logs also. Is this
> behavior intentional or do we want to only store the exceptions in the
> database? I like the current behavior, but I wanted to get some input from
> others.
>
> -Dennis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>


-- 

Michael Hrivnak

Principal Software Engineer, RHCE

Red Hat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170913/8995140d/attachment.htm>