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

chore(ffi): reduce the verbosity of the store locks and ambiguity map #4628

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 5, 2025

Conversation

stefanceriu
Copy link
Member

They produce hundreds of logs like

2025-02-05T12:25:02.584637Z  INFO matrix_sdk_base::store::ambiguity_map: return=false | crates/matrix-sdk-base/src/store/ambiguity_map.rs:89 | spans: live_update_handler{room_id="!XBZZPIcqcoInXjgKdL:matrix.org" focus="live"} > is_display_name_ambiguous{display_name=DisplayName { raw: "Doug", decancered: Some("doug") } users_with_display_name={"@douge:matrix.org"}}

and

2025-02-05T12:23:21.894300Z  INFO matrix_sdk_common::store_locks: aborting the previous renew task | crates/matrix-sdk-common/src/store_locks.rs:219 | spans: root > spin_lock{max_backoff=None self.lock_key="default" self.lock_holder="io.element.elementx"} > try_lock_once{self.lock_key="default" self.lock_holder="io.element.elementx"}

@stefanceriu stefanceriu requested a review from a team as a code owner February 5, 2025 12:59
@stefanceriu stefanceriu requested review from andybalaam and removed request for a team February 5, 2025 12:59
@bnjbvr
Copy link
Member

bnjbvr commented Feb 5, 2025

For the store lock renewing task, an alternative could be to lower the log level at the statement level, i.e. use trace! or debug! instead of info!. Aborting would happen often, so it's likely not desirable to put it at the info! level over all.

@stefanceriu
Copy link
Member Author

I think you can say the same about finding ambiguous display names. I'm thinking it's best we keep disabling them individually for a while to see where we get. At the end of it we'll have a pretty good idea on usage and we'll know better what the final fix should be 🤷

@bnjbvr
Copy link
Member

bnjbvr commented Feb 5, 2025

@stefanceriu unintended revert in the commit's list?

@stefanceriu
Copy link
Member Author

@stefanceriu unintended revert in the commit's list?

Oh damn, sorry, I'm testing something out for Ivan at the same time. Thanks for catching it!

@stefanceriu stefanceriu force-pushed the stefan/silenceAnnoyingLogs branch from 385d5c0 to 9dd83c2 Compare February 5, 2025 13:20
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 5, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.72%. Comparing base (ed18c51) to head (9dd83c2).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4628   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.72%   85.72%           
=======================================
  Files         292      292           
  Lines       33487    33487           
=======================================
  Hits        28708    28708           
  Misses       4779     4779           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@stefanceriu stefanceriu merged commit d8f3750 into main Feb 5, 2025
40 checks passed
@stefanceriu stefanceriu deleted the stefan/silenceAnnoyingLogs branch February 5, 2025 15:45
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants