logging (was: rpmguard-integration branch available)

[Kamil Paral]

----- "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  I played around with a quick'n'dirty patch that uses the logging
>  module
>  (which autotest extends for us).
>  
>  http://pastie.org/747317
>  
>  It's definitely not perfect or something I would consider committing. 
>  I
>  just was curious how the logging module would work with our test
>  wrappers.  The nice thing is autotest splits the output based on
>  loglevel for us ...
>  
>          # ls /usr/share/autotest/client/results/post-koji-build
>          \:rpmguard.x86_64/rpmguard/debug/
>          rpmguard.DEBUG  rpmguard.ERROR  rpmguard.INFO 
>  rpmguard.WARNING
>          
>          # cat /usr/share/autotest/client/results/post-koji-build
>          \:rpmguard.x86_64/rpmguard/debug/rpmguard.ERROR 
>          rpmlint.noarch                                           |
>  348
>          kB     00:00 ...     ]  0.0 B/s |  53 kB     --:-- ETA 
>          12/17 11:15:16 ERROR|  rpmguard:0124| added        REQUIRES
>          libportaudio.so.2  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)  
>          12/17 11:15:24 ERROR|  rpmguard:0124| added        REQUIRES
>          libportaudio.so.2()(64bit)  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0()(64bit)  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)  
>          12/17 11:15:27 ERROR|  rpmguard:0124| added        REQUIRES
>          libportaudio.so.2()(64bit)  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0()(64bit)  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)  
>          12/17 11:15:34 ERROR|  rpmguard:0124| added        REQUIRES
>          libportaudio.so.2  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0  
>          removed      REQUIRES libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)  
>  
>  The format of the logs is something autotest has defined, and we can
>  override if desired.  Also, in this example I was assuming that any
>  output from rpmguard was considered a failure.  So that output was
>  sent
>  using logging.error(...).
>  
>  The logging module is pretty flexible.  It's easy to add additional
>  logging destinations (files, stdout etc...), each with their own
>  output
>  formats.  So we could continue creating the single rpmguard.log
>  results
>  file if desired.  In fact, we could possible have this done for every
>  test by providing an AutoQA specific output handler in addition to
>  what
>  autotest has defined.
>  
>  Thoughts/comments/concerns? 
I would like to use it, even though I still see value in having self.results
separated from general logging facility (but it all depends how we want our
output to look like). I will play with it after Christmas.