You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com> on 2003/09/03 20:44:53 UTC
Re: DEBUG Level?
Jason,
Jason Kary wrote:
> Hey Team,
>
> I am trying to figure out why my forrest site is not working with the
> head version. Please find the enclosed patch.
> I've also notice the HEAD is not listening to the 'project.debuglevel'
> variable since the CLI integration? Has anyone else had this problem?
I test it and it does not seem to work, I have not been able to find out
why, but the new cli does not seem to increase/decrease log with
modifier "--logLevel="
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I mean <logging> node.
>
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
>
>> Quoting Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>:
>>
>>> Upayavira,
>>> Upayavira wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you're using an xconf, you should set the log level in there,
>>>> using the <logging> node. That is probably overriding your
>>>> --logLevel modifier.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not using logging in forrest.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not? I think this would be a great help in debugging problems.
>> Or if there is any good way to debug forrest bugs, I don't know of it.
>> -- Dave Brondsema dave@brondsema.net http://www.brondsema.net -
>> personal http://www.splike.com - programming
>
I made a change to the way the logkit attribute of the logging node in
cli.xconf was handled. I can see I need to think it through a bit
better. I've reverted it now, and will do a better job later.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Dave,
I mean <logging> node.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Quoting Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>:
>
>
>>Upayavira,
>>
>>Upayavira wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If you're using an xconf, you should set the log level in there, using
>>>the <logging> node. That is probably overriding your --logLevel modifier.
>>>
>>
>>
>>We are not using logging in forrest.
>>
>
>
> Why not? I think this would be a great help in debugging problems. Or if
> there is any good way to debug forrest bugs, I don't know of it.
>
> --
> Dave Brondsema
> dave@brondsema.net
> http://www.brondsema.net - personal
> http://www.splike.com - programming
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Upayavira,
My idea of open bugs is only to allow you not to forget what needs to be
done , or other people check and think "Hey, I can do that!" "Hey, they
kow about that problem, I will not open another bug".
If this issue is part of a bigger change, I am happy if that change
already is on bugzilla or if you keep our emails as a reminder.
Cheers,
cheche
Upayavira wrote:
> Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I added extra info to be output to the CLI. Then Berin got annoyed by
>>> the output, and put in this option. I don't know what has happened
>>> from then on about it, probably the output system changed and this
>>> was not fixed accordingly.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that you have more info on this issue, should be open a bug
>> on this?
>
>
> To be honest, I wouldn't, unless it is bugging you.
>
> The output method of the CLI will change when I get a chance to
> implement it, and it will allow for the reporting and logging of a lot
> more information. I will have to find a way to make it configurable, as
> people won't want everything.
>
> But you'll be able to log to file, or to stdout, hopefully the following:
> * URL of page generated
> * Time taken to generate URL
> * Number of unique links in page
> * Number of new links in page (not yet scheduled to be crawled)
> * Number of ungenerated pages remaining after generating this page
> * All links found within the page, with their untranslated and
> translated URIs
> * Whether any of these links is broken or not
> * Time taken to generate entire site
>
> This will supercede the current 'broken link' handling, which as I see
> it is just a subset of the functionality I describe above.
>
> You'll then (I hope) have more than enough control to find out what is
> going on within the CLI.
>
> Feel free to bug me if you think this is urgently needed.
> (Unfortunately, bugging me usually works ;-)
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>
>> I added extra info to be output to the CLI. Then Berin got annoyed by
>> the output, and put in this option. I don't know what has happened
>> from then on about it, probably the output system changed and this
>> was not fixed accordingly.
>>
>
> It seems that you have more info on this issue, should be open a bug
> on this?
To be honest, I wouldn't, unless it is bugging you.
The output method of the CLI will change when I get a chance to
implement it, and it will allow for the reporting and logging of a lot
more information. I will have to find a way to make it configurable, as
people won't want everything.
But you'll be able to log to file, or to stdout, hopefully the following:
* URL of page generated
* Time taken to generate URL
* Number of unique links in page
* Number of new links in page (not yet scheduled to be crawled)
* Number of ungenerated pages remaining after generating this page
* All links found within the page, with their untranslated and
translated URIs
* Whether any of these links is broken or not
* Time taken to generate entire site
This will supercede the current 'broken link' handling, which as I see
it is just a subset of the functionality I describe above.
You'll then (I hope) have more than enough control to find out what is
going on within the CLI.
Feel free to bug me if you think this is urgently needed.
(Unfortunately, bugging me usually works ;-)
Regards, Upayavira
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> I added extra info to be output to the CLI. Then Berin got annoyed by
> the output, and put in this option. I don't know what has happened from
> then on about it, probably the output system changed and this was not
> fixed accordingly.
>
It seems that you have more info on this issue, should be open a bug on
this?
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Upayavira wrote:
...
> -v is a bit strange within the CLI. I've just checked out what -v does.
> In fact, there's a lot of code to handle passing around whether the user
> wants verbose logging to stdout, and then only one, minor, error that is
> checked and reported based upon this setting. So it ain't doing much
> really.
>
> The verbose option is completely independent of the logging settings, so
> if you're only getting ERROR level, then there's some other problem.
>
> So I'd ignore what I've said about -v, it doesn't currently do much.
I added extra info to be output to the CLI. Then Berin got annoyed by
the output, and put in this option. I don't know what has happened from
then on about it, probably the output system changed and this was not
fixed accordingly.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Upayavira,
> 'forrest -v' is for the ant run, not for forrest, to allow verbose
> within forrest, I had to change this on forrest.build.xml:
>
> @@ -635,6 +635,7 @@
> <arg value="--destDir=${project.site-dir}"/>
> <arg value="--xconf=${project.configfile}"/>
> <arg value="${project.start-uri}"/>
> + <arg value="--verbose" />
> <classpath>
> <path refid="forrest.cp"/>
> </classpath>
>
>
> But I only get ERROR level.
-v is a bit strange within the CLI. I've just checked out what -v does.
In fact, there's a lot of code to handle passing around whether the user
wants verbose logging to stdout, and then only one, minor, error that is
checked and reported based upon this setting. So it ain't doing much
really.
The verbose option is completely independent of the logging settings, so
if you're only getting ERROR level, then there's some other problem.
So I'd ignore what I've said about -v, it doesn't currently do much.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Upayavira,
'forrest -v' is for the ant run, not for forrest, to allow verbose
within forrest, I had to change this on forrest.build.xml:
@@ -635,6 +635,7 @@
<arg value="--destDir=${project.site-dir}"/>
<arg value="--xconf=${project.configfile}"/>
<arg value="${project.start-uri}"/>
+ <arg value="--verbose" />
<classpath>
<path refid="forrest.cp"/>
</classpath>
But I only get ERROR level.
Upayavira wrote:
>
>
> The -v verbose option was added to the CLI by Nicola Ken some time ago.
>
> Regards, Upayavira
>
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> David,
>
>>
>> You can also do 'forrest -v' to get verbose stdout.
>>
>> --David
>
>
> That output is just for the ant run. AFAIK it does not output anything
> within cocoon.
The -v verbose option was added to the CLI by Nicola Ken some time ago.
Regards, Upayavira
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
David,
>
> You can also do 'forrest -v' to get verbose stdout.
>
> --David
That output is just for the ant run. AFAIK it does not output anything
within cocoon.
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Juan Jose Pablos <cheche> wrote:
> <snip/>
> > We are not using logging in forrest.
>
> Why not? I think this would be a great help in debugging problems.
> Or if there is any good way to debug forrest bugs, I don't know of it.
Logs are at:
xml-forrest/build/tmp/context/WEB-INF/logs/
... see FAQ #1 :-)
You can also do 'forrest -v' to get verbose stdout.
--David
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
Quoting Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>:
> Upayavira,
>
> Upayavira wrote:
> >
> > If you're using an xconf, you should set the log level in there, using
> > the <logging> node. That is probably overriding your --logLevel modifier.
> >
>
> We are not using logging in forrest.
>
Why not? I think this would be a great help in debugging problems. Or if
there is any good way to debug forrest bugs, I don't know of it.
--
Dave Brondsema
dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net - personal
http://www.splike.com - programming
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Upayavira,
Upayavira wrote:
>
> If you're using an xconf, you should set the log level in there, using
> the <logging> node. That is probably overriding your --logLevel modifier.
>
We are not using logging in forrest.
> If you want the --logLevel option, you have two choices:
> 1) Remove the loglevel attribute from the logging node in cli.xconf and
> use --logLevel
Done it, I upgrade to today's version, and I found a bug:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22916
I test DEBUG, ERROR, FATAL_ERROR but always I get same result, do I need
to add --Logger=core?
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: DEBUG Level?
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@upaya.co.uk>.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:44:53 +0200, "Juan Jose Pablos"
<ch...@che-che.com> said:
> Jason,
>
> Jason Kary wrote:
> > Hey Team,
> >
> > I am trying to figure out why my forrest site is not working with the
> > head version. Please find the enclosed patch.
> > I've also notice the HEAD is not listening to the 'project.debuglevel'
> > variable since the CLI integration? Has anyone else had this problem?
>
> I test it and it does not seem to work, I have not been able to find out
> why, but the new cli does not seem to increase/decrease log with
> modifier "--logLevel="
If you're using an xconf, you should set the log level in there, using
the <logging> node. That is probably overriding your --logLevel modifier.
If you want the --logLevel option, you have two choices:
1) Remove the loglevel attribute from the logging node in cli.xconf and
use --logLevel
2) Wait until I write my Ant task that'll allow you to embed your xconf
stuff straight into your build script.
For now, I'd stick with 1) ;-)
Regards, Upayavira