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 EA7A81FF0B7 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AD3FC21681; Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 11:44:58 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [RFC datacenter-manager/proxmox v2 0/4] log: allow finegrained control logging levels From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Thomas Ellmenreich" , "Lukas Wagner" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-0-g5549850facc2-dirty References: <20260923115815.211083-1-t.ellmenreich@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790934298163 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.366 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: EKJAX6YTGEWFIX32XYPMLELOY6NIFT5P X-Message-ID-Hash: EKJAX6YTGEWFIX32XYPMLELOY6NIFT5P X-MailFrom: l.wagner@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: On Fri Oct 2, 2026 at 11:34 AM CEST, Thomas Ellmenreich wrote: > 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 confu= sing and >>> would have thought that our 'default_log_level' should apply as defau= lt in >>> that case. Unfortunately, when setting 'default_log_level' and then a= pplying >>> the EnvFilter string, tracing applies the modules as expected, but th= en 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? Since as I mentioned this is (mostly) a developer-feature, I think adding a small section about it in the 'dev-docs' (this is a folder in the PDM repo) would be a good start. It of course still could also make sense to mention in the user-facing product documentation, but as we have briefly discussed off-list, module paths are inherently unstable, so it's somewhat pointless to provide examples there. Familiarity with the code structure is required to properly use this feature. So for now, I'd just add it as developer documentation. I've noticed that PDM and PBS use different conventions for the environment variable, in PDM we use PROXMOX_DEBUG, while in PBS we use PBS_LOG -- maybe that's also something where we should find a common style to use. Just thinking out aloud here, no need to touch this as part of this series, of course. > > [snip]