[GitHub] [airflow] potiuk commented on issue #19983: Exclude airflow runner internals from Operator failure tracebacks

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

potiuk commented on issue #19983:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/19983#issuecomment-986326284


   I think it depends on whose view you take into account, I am for adding as much information as possible in the stack trace, because you never know when more stack trace is useful. If a user reports a "half hearted" stack trace I am usually not able to help as a maintainer. 
   
   Surely, If the information is duplicated - and you know how to de-duplicate it reliably - feel free to open PR for that. It does look like in this case it should be possible. But I am personally not loosing my sleep over it. I personally usually err on the side of having more information of errors than needed rather than risking I miss some information - especially in cases like that when you might expect "ANY" error and ANY environment the error might come from.
   
   Hiding anything in this case is IMHO far too easy to loose crucial information that might help maintainers to debug problems. Surely in this case proably most of the stack trace is repetitive most of the time. But also those errors are serving a different purpose - expect unexpected. And if thanks to the stack traces you wil sometimes be able to diagnose much more than you think. I cannot count how many times I discovered that someone's process actuallly use a different version of the software than they thought - simply because I noticed that it's impossible to get the stacktrace with this particular line number in platform's stack-trace.
   
   I'd rather personally focus (and I do for quite some time) on making the "known" error messages more actionable and explanatory to the users when we "know" what the issue is. 
   
   But I think getting rid of the full stack trace from logs (other than duplication) will make it far harder to get help by our users, which for me trumps the conciseness of the logs.
   
   I am not sure if this is an "iissue"/feature. Maybe others woudl be interested in chiming in, so I am turning it into a discussion, but if you have any concrete PR proposals to improve the logging of particular cases (without loosing the "observability" of the issues when they appear - you are most welcome @hterik) . 
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@airflow.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org