Skip to content

Leverage Slog And Or Log For Debugging Output #48

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

Open
TheServerAsterisk opened this issue May 17, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

Leverage Slog And Or Log For Debugging Output #48

TheServerAsterisk opened this issue May 17, 2017 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
easy enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix help wanted

Comments

@TheServerAsterisk
Copy link
Contributor

There is some debugging information that is getting outputted in the graphql_input_object macro namely on line 70. Either, logging framework like Slog or Log should be used for outputting debugging information or this line and others like it should be removed.

@mhallin
Copy link
Member

mhallin commented May 17, 2017

I think that all println! not in tests or the example should be removed - I probably accidentally committed them :)

It might be a good idea to support e.g. Slog in the executor, just so that an application developer can get a useable trace from Juniper if they're trying to debug field execution or something.

@theduke theduke added the enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix label Jul 23, 2017
@theduke theduke self-assigned this Aug 29, 2017
@theduke theduke added this to the 1.0 milestone Aug 29, 2017
@piperRyan
Copy link
Contributor

piperRyan commented Oct 4, 2018

Not gonna promise anything as I might overload on turkey, but I'll try to get this done on the weekend. @theduke, @mhallin or @LegNeato any strong opinions on what should be logged? I guessing we should use Slog as that looks like to be the de facto for logging.

@graysonarts
Copy link

@piperRyan - did you end up making any progress on this? I was looking for a way to contribute and this seemed like a good path

@piperRyan
Copy link
Contributor

@RussTheAerialist Unfortunately I have been quite busy, so if you wanted to tackle this one you can go ahead! :)

@theduke theduke removed this from the 1.0 milestone May 16, 2019
@theduke
Copy link
Member

theduke commented Aug 30, 2019

Continued in #423 .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
easy enhancement Improvement of existing features or bugfix help wanted
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants