Conversation
| function Logging.handle_message(logger::RemoteLogger, level::Logging.LogLevel, message, _module, _group, _id, | ||
| _file, _line; kwargs...) | ||
| @nospecialize | ||
| remote_do(logmsg, logger.pid, level, message, _module, _group, _id, _file, _line; pid=myid(), kwargs...) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here I thought we could directly use handle_message from the targetted worker but I don't know how to fetch the current_logger there...
You could acknowledge @simonbyrne by adding a line to a commit message. |
Co-authored-by: simonbyrne <simonbyrne@users.noreply.github.com>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #94 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 79.14% 79.23% +0.08%
==========================================
Files 10 11 +1
Lines 1899 1907 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 1503 1511 +8
Misses 396 396 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
As mentioned in the original PR, this feels a bit lacking without support for scopes 🤔 If there's significant demand I would be ok with merging it under a WRT supporting scopes I kinda like the idea here about @vchuravy, @jpsamaroo, any thoughts? |
|
This PR hasn't been updated in over a year. Bump @JamesWrigley @vchuravy @jpsamaroo @theogf - What's the current status of this PR? |
|
I'd still prefer to fix the scoping behavior before this is merged. Maybe that's simpler now since IIRC the logging system uses ScopedValues internally? |
Closes #52
This is the port from JuliaLang/julia#48121 by @simonbyrne .
I mostly reused the code from the PR, if that's not okay let me know I'll just close this PR.
I also did not made the modification on using this as a default for new workers as this would be unexpected behaviour.