Skip to content

[MDEP-960] Repair silent logging #447

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 9, 2024
Merged

[MDEP-960] Repair silent logging #447

merged 6 commits into from
Nov 9, 2024

Conversation

elharo
Copy link
Contributor

@elharo elharo commented Oct 17, 2024

This test could never fail

@elharo elharo changed the title Fix assertion Repair silent logging Oct 17, 2024
@elharo elharo changed the title Repair silent logging [MDEP-960] Repair silent logging Oct 17, 2024
@elharo elharo requested a review from michael-o October 18, 2024 21:39
michael-o
michael-o reviewed Oct 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@michael-o michael-o left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I honestly don't udnerstand why this is needed at all. I mean we have -q and -X...

@elharo
Copy link
Contributor Author

elharo commented Oct 22, 2024

Yes, I'm not sure why this was done like this in the first place. This has been around since 2.0 so who knows? I am confident the way it was done is buggy, so this tries to repair as much of it as I easily could. I noticed because the tests mixed up two different silent log classes. Someone wasn't following test first practices when they wrote this.

If we're comfortable with some incompatibility, then we could mke the silent parameter and associated methods noops.

@michael-o
Copy link
Member

Yes, I'm not sure why this was done like this in the first place. This has been around since 2.0 so who knows? I am confident the way it was done is buggy, so this tries to repair as much of it as I easily could. I noticed because the tests mixed up two different silent log classes. Someone wasn't following test first practices when they wrote this.

If we're comfortable with some incompatibility, then we could mke the silent parameter and associated methods noops.

Maybe we should deprecate for removal in 4?

@elharo
Copy link
Contributor Author

elharo commented Oct 22, 2024

OK, deprecated

elharo
elharo commented Oct 22, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor Author

@elharo elharo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh dman it, that went to the wrong branch. Why, why don't we protect our branches?

@elharo
Copy link
Contributor Author

elharo commented Nov 7, 2024

Ping

michael-o
michael-o requested changes Nov 9, 2024
View reviewed changes
@elharo elharo merged commit 192b2c0 into master Nov 9, 2024
51 checks passed
@elharo elharo deleted the silent branch November 9, 2024 15:12
@jira-importer
Copy link

Resolve #1455

@elharo elharo mentioned this pull request Sep 13, 2025
Open
@elharo elharo added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 13, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@michael-o michael-o michael-o approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

bug Something isn't working

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@elharo @michael-o @jira-importer