Skip to content
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

TaggedLogging not broadcasting tags #44668

Open
mtomiyoshi opened this issue Mar 12, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #49771
Open

TaggedLogging not broadcasting tags #44668

mtomiyoshi opened this issue Mar 12, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #49771

Comments

@mtomiyoshi
Copy link

This is similar to #43291, but I am calling the method with a block.

When not using a block it works fine, demonstrated by the test mentioned in the issue:

@logger.extend(ActiveSupport::Logger.broadcast(broadcast_logger))

Steps to reproduce

# frozen_string_literal: true

require 'bundler/inline'

gemfile(true) do
  source 'https://rubygems.org'

  git_source(:github) { |repo| "https://github.com/#{repo}.git" }

  gem 'rails', github: 'rails/rails', branch: 'main'
end

require 'active_support'
require 'active_support/core_ext/object/blank'
require 'minitest/autorun'

class BugTest < Minitest::Test
  class MyLogger < ::ActiveSupport::Logger
    def flush(*)
      info '[FLUSHED]'
    end
  end

  def test_keep_broadcast_with_block
    @output = StringIO.new
    @logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(MyLogger.new(@output))

    broadcast_output = StringIO.new
    broadcast_logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(Logger.new(broadcast_output))
    @logger.extend(ActiveSupport::Logger.broadcast(broadcast_logger))

    @logger.tagged('OMG') { |logger| logger.info 'Broadcasting...' }

    assert_equal "[OMG] Broadcasting...\n", @output.string
    assert_equal "[OMG] Broadcasting...\n", broadcast_output.string
  end
end

Expected behavior

Both loggers should log "[OMG] Broadcasting...\n"

Actual behavior

One of them logs "[OMG] Broadcasting...\n", the other logs Broadcasting...\n instead.

Result of the test script:

F

Failure:
BugTest#test_keep_broadcast_with_block [tagged_logger_bug.rb:50]:
--- expected
+++ actual
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-"[OMG] Broadcasting...
+"Broadcasting...
 "

System configuration

Rails version: main

Ruby version: 3.1.1

@Edouard-chin
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #44695

@rafaelfranca rafaelfranca reopened this Sep 8, 2022
@Edouard-chin Edouard-chin linked a pull request Oct 24, 2023 that will close this issue
Edouard-chin added a commit to Edouard-chin/rails that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2023
- ### Context

  The Tagged Logging functionality has been a source of a few
  issues over the years, especially when combined with the
  broadcasting feature.
  Initializating a Tagged Logger wasn't very intuitive:

  ```ruby
    logger = Logger.new(STDOUT)
    tagged_logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(logger)
    # Would expect the `tagged_logger` to be an instance of `AS::TaggedLogging`
    # but it's a clone of the `logger`.

    tagged_logger.formatter = ->(_, _, _, message) do
      { message: message }
    end
    # Modifies the formatter to output JSON formatted logs.
    # This breaks tagged logging.
  ```

  I believe the main reason of those issues is because tagged logging
  is implemented at the wrong level.

  ### Solution

  I made a proposal on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90 to help
  solve this but it hasn't been reviewed yet. So I thought about adding
  it here for now.
  The TL;DR is to decouple formatting and adding extra information to
  logs (which is what tagged logging does).

  ### Deprecation

  Since TaggedLogging will no longer access the formatter, there is a
  few things I'd like to deprecate (such as setting a default
  formatter https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/d68e43922bc11829c52ad9f736ad5549fc97631b/activesupport/lib/active_support/tagged_logging.rb#L124)
  but doing so in this PR would increase the size of the diff
  significantly and would maybe distract for PR reviews.

  Another thing that I believe should be deprecated is
  `ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new`. Adding tagging
  functionality to a logger should be done using
  a more ruby approach such as `logger.extend(AS::TaggedLogging)`.

  Fix rails#49757
  Fix rails#49745
  Fix rails#46084
  Fix rails#44668

I made a propose on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90,
  but it hasn't been reviewed it.
Edouard-chin added a commit to Edouard-chin/rails that referenced this issue Jan 17, 2024
- ### Context

  The Tagged Logging functionality has been a source of a few
  issues over the years, especially when combined with the
  broadcasting feature.
  Initializating a Tagged Logger wasn't very intuitive:

  ```ruby
    logger = Logger.new(STDOUT)
    tagged_logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(logger)
    # Would expect the `tagged_logger` to be an instance of `AS::TaggedLogging`
    # but it's a clone of the `logger`.

    tagged_logger.formatter = ->(_, _, _, message) do
      { message: message }
    end
    # Modifies the formatter to output JSON formatted logs.
    # This breaks tagged logging.
  ```

  I believe the main reason of those issues is because tagged logging
  is implemented at the wrong level.

  ### Solution

  I made a proposal on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90 to help
  solve this but it hasn't been reviewed yet. So I thought about adding
  it here for now.
  The TL;DR is to decouple formatting and adding extra information to
  logs (which is what tagged logging does).

  ### Deprecation

  Since TaggedLogging will no longer access the formatter, there is a
  few things I'd like to deprecate (such as setting a default
  formatter https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/d68e43922bc11829c52ad9f736ad5549fc97631b/activesupport/lib/active_support/tagged_logging.rb#L124)
  but doing so in this PR would increase the size of the diff
  significantly and would maybe distract for PR reviews.

  Another thing that I believe should be deprecated is
  `ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new`. Adding tagging
  functionality to a logger should be done using
  a more ruby approach such as `logger.extend(AS::TaggedLogging)`.

  Fix rails#49757
  Fix rails#49745
  Fix rails#46084
  Fix rails#44668

I made a propose on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90,
  but it hasn't been reviewed it.
Edouard-chin added a commit to Edouard-chin/rails that referenced this issue Oct 28, 2024
- ### Context

  The Tagged Logging functionality has been a source of a few
  issues over the years, especially when combined with the
  broadcasting feature.
  Initializating a Tagged Logger wasn't very intuitive:

  ```ruby
    logger = Logger.new(STDOUT)
    tagged_logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(logger)
    # Would expect the `tagged_logger` to be an instance of `AS::TaggedLogging`
    # but it's a clone of the `logger`.

    tagged_logger.formatter = ->(_, _, _, message) do
      { message: message }
    end
    # Modifies the formatter to output JSON formatted logs.
    # This breaks tagged logging.
  ```

  I believe the main reason of those issues is because tagged logging
  is implemented at the wrong level.

  ### Solution

  I made a proposal on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90 to help
  solve this but it hasn't been reviewed yet. So I thought about adding
  it here for now.
  The TL;DR is to decouple formatting and adding extra information to
  logs (which is what tagged logging does).

  ### Deprecation

  Since TaggedLogging will no longer access the formatter, there is a
  few things I'd like to deprecate (such as setting a default
  formatter https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/d68e43922bc11829c52ad9f736ad5549fc97631b/activesupport/lib/active_support/tagged_logging.rb#L124)
  but doing so in this PR would increase the size of the diff
  significantly and would maybe distract for PR reviews.

  Another thing that I believe should be deprecated is
  `ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new`. Adding tagging
  functionality to a logger should be done using
  a more ruby approach such as `logger.extend(AS::TaggedLogging)`.

  Fix rails#49757
  Fix rails#49745
  Fix rails#46084
  Fix rails#44668

I made a propose on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90,
  but it hasn't been reviewed it.
Edouard-chin added a commit to Edouard-chin/rails that referenced this issue Oct 28, 2024
- ### Context

  The Tagged Logging functionality has been a source of a few
  issues over the years, especially when combined with the
  broadcasting feature.
  Initializating a Tagged Logger wasn't very intuitive:

  ```ruby
    logger = Logger.new(STDOUT)
    tagged_logger = ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new(logger)
    # Would expect the `tagged_logger` to be an instance of `AS::TaggedLogging`
    # but it's a clone of the `logger`.

    tagged_logger.formatter = ->(_, _, _, message) do
      { message: message }
    end
    # Modifies the formatter to output JSON formatted logs.
    # This breaks tagged logging.
  ```

  I believe the main reason of those issues is because tagged logging
  is implemented at the wrong level.

  ### Solution

  I made a proposal on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90 to help
  solve this but it hasn't been reviewed yet. So I thought about adding
  it here for now.
  The TL;DR is to decouple formatting and adding extra information to
  logs (which is what tagged logging does).

  ### Deprecation

  Since TaggedLogging will no longer access the formatter, there is a
  few things I'd like to deprecate (such as setting a default
  formatter https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/d68e43922bc11829c52ad9f736ad5549fc97631b/activesupport/lib/active_support/tagged_logging.rb#L124)
  but doing so in this PR would increase the size of the diff
  significantly and would maybe distract for PR reviews.

  Another thing that I believe should be deprecated is
  `ActiveSupport::TaggedLogging.new`. Adding tagging
  functionality to a logger should be done using
  a more ruby approach such as `logger.extend(AS::TaggedLogging)`.

  Fix rails#49757
  Fix rails#49745
  Fix rails#46084
  Fix rails#44668

I made a propose on the Ruby logger upstream in ruby/logger#90,
  but it hasn't been reviewed it.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants