From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFE511FF0B7 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:34:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BF17A21617; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:34:20 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [RFC datacenter-manager/proxmox v2 0/4] log: allow finegrained control logging levels From: "Thomas Ellmenreich" To: "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260923115815.211083-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790933660735 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.489 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 7HZPUHQHUHUWR2Y242Q5E5AZH367TOHA X-Message-ID-Hash: 7HZPUHQHUHUWR2Y242Q5E5AZH367TOHA X-MailFrom: t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you very much for your review. I will address the changes in the next version. I have one question below: On Fri Oct 2, 2026 at 10:10 AM CEST, Lukas Wagner wrote: [snip] >> - Initially, I found case 3. of the different logging cases quite confus= ing and >> would have thought that our 'default_log_level' should apply as defaul= t in >> that case. Unfortunately, when setting 'default_log_level' and then ap= plying >> the EnvFilter string, tracing applies the modules as expected, but the= n also >> overrides the default as '', which means off. > > Indeed a bit confusing, but since this is (mostly) a > developer/supporter feature, as long at this behavior is documented > somewhere, it should be manageable. Since you mentioned it, should I add some documentation somewhere explaining how to use these env filters? If so, where would be the best place for it? [snip]