Skip to content
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

Spoof json-file logging support #3375

Merged

Conversation

haircommander
Copy link
Collaborator

For docker scripting compatibility, allow for json-file logging when creating args for conmon. That way, when json-file is supported, that case can be easily removed.
Fixes: #3363

libpod/oci_linux.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
For docker scripting compatibility, allow for json-file logging when creating args for conmon. That way, when json-file is supported, that case can be easily removed.

Signed-off-by: Peter Hunt <[email protected]>
@@ -246,7 +246,9 @@ func (r *OCIRuntime) createOCIContainer(ctr *Container, cgroupParent string, res
}

logDriver := KubernetesLogging
if ctr.LogDriver() != "" {
if ctr.LogDriver() == JSONLogging {
logrus.Errorf("json-file logging specified but not supported. Choosing k8s-file logging instead")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should be a Warnf not an Errorf.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I really want to keep the Errrof here - we need to make it very obvious that they should switch to k8s-file

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would be fine either way, I'll let you two decide. I will weigh in that the only reason a user cares about the difference is if they want to read the log as a json. If we leave it as a warning, and document it, we can point users to the fact they can't read it as json, and thus not have a loud error.

@haircommander
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I also added a documentation fix to fix #3363 (comment)

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jun 19, 2019

Ok I will go along with @mheon
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Jun 19, 2019
@haircommander
Copy link
Collaborator Author

PTAL @mheon I could use approval :)

@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented Jun 19, 2019

Oh, oops
/approve

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Collaborator

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: haircommander, mheon

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Jun 19, 2019
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit e90d769 into containers:master Jun 19, 2019
@rh-atomic-bot rh-atomic-bot mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2019
7 tasks
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 26, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 26, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
5 participants