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

[all]: openstack API debugger shows client.go:128 for all calls #2300

Open
kayrus opened this issue Jul 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

[all]: openstack API debugger shows client.go:128 for all calls #2300

kayrus opened this issue Jul 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.

Comments

@kayrus
Copy link
Contributor

kayrus commented Jul 14, 2023

Is this a BUG REPORT or FEATURE REQUEST?:

/kind bug

What happened:

I noticed that all API debug logs have client.go:128 prefix from the #2295 (comment) logs

What you expected to happen:

Logs should show the actual place of the call, e.g. in 1.25 it is:

I0713 11:50:50.686815       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]   "volumes_links": [
I0713 11:50:50.686831       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]     {
I0713 11:50:50.686845       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]       "href": "https://cinder-v3/v3/4d0477a019414ee08ad0fd11b777eee2/volumes/detail?limit=2\u0026marker=faf60902-227c-4812-ac35-fb5f1aea7e7f",
I0713 11:50:50.686863       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]       "rel": "next"
I0713 11:50:50.686877       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]     }
I0713 11:50:50.686892       1 openstack_volumes.go:82]   ]
I0713 11:50:50.686909       1 openstack_volumes.go:82] }

How to reproduce it:

n/a

Anything else we need to know?:

#867

Environment:

  • openstack-cloud-controller-manager(or other related binary) version:
  • OpenStack version:
  • Others:
@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug. label Jul 14, 2023
@jichenjc
Copy link
Contributor

good catch~

you mean #867 might be the root cause or it's reference that previously it works fine?

@kayrus
Copy link
Contributor Author

kayrus commented Jul 17, 2023

@jichenjc it's a reference for the initial implementation. I don't know at what point it stopped to work, but for sure it works fine in 1.25.x

@dulek dulek added the good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. label Oct 13, 2023
@majorchork
Copy link
Contributor

/assign

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Denotes an issue ready for a new contributor, according to the "help wanted" guidelines. kind/bug Categorizes issue or PR as related to a bug.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants