[layer8]

> - error means someone is alerted urgently to look at the problem

The issue is that the code that encounters the problem may not have the knowledge/context to decide whether it warrants alerting. The code higher up that does have the knowledge, on the other hand, often doesn’t have the lower-level information that is useful to have in the log for analyzing the failure. So how do you link the two? When you write modular code that minimizes assumptions about its context, that situation is a common occurrence.

[chii]

> When you write modular code that minimizes assumptions about its context, that situation is a common occurrence.

so your code isn't modular after all, because the code is _doing_ logging as a side-effect of the actual functionality.

The modularity of your code should mean that the outcome of the functionality is packaged into a bundle of data, and this bundle includes information about errors (or warnings) - aka, a status result.

The caller of this module will inspect this data, and they themselves will decide to log (or, if they are a module of their own, pass the data up again). This goes on, until the data goes into a logging layer - solely responsible for logging perhaps.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, except the problem here is that if the app crashes, you'll lose all the messages in the bundle. That's why people tend to use side-effect logging that persists messages immediately. That, and because it keeps timestamps correct.

I suppose this approach would make most sense in event-driven apps where no particular processing takes any meaningful amount of time, so you're constantly revisiting the top-level loop, where the "logging layer" could live. However, most software isn't written this way.

[Too]

App segfaulting before having chance to log is mostly a thing in the past, unless you are writing c++. Any other language will instead have a top level exception handler.

If you were to take hard crashes into account, you would even have to log before each operation instead of after, basically reverting to printf-debugging.

[TeMPOraL]

> unless you are writing c++

Guilty as charged.

> If you were to take hard crashes into account, you would even have to log before each operation instead of after

Yes, that's exactly what I see done and do for large enough operations (substeps of those operations only log when they're done).

> basically reverting to printf-debugging

That's what logging is, fundamentally. printf debugging, but with your own printf that has a few more knobs.

[beachy]

If the code detecting the error is a library/subordinate service then the same rule can be followed - should this be immediately brought to a human's attention?

The answer for a library will often be no, since the library doesn't "have the knowledge/context to decide whether it warrants alerting".

So in that case the library can log as info, and leave it to the caller to log as error if warranted (after learning about the error from return code/http status etc.).

When investigating the error, the human has access to the info details from the subordinate service.