[MAGNOLIA-5785] Show uniquely identifying information when printing information about a node Created: 26/May/14 Updated: 19/May/22 Resolved: 19/May/22 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Magnolia |
| Component/s: | activation, core |
| Affects Version/s: | 4.5.19 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Neutral |
| Reporter: | Nils Breunese | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Template: |
|
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
| Date of First Response: |
| Description |
|
When logging information about a node it would be very helpful if the information uniquely identified the node. With Magnolia 4.5.19 I see the following in the logs when activating two nodes: INFO info.magnolia.module.exchangesimple.BaseSyndicatorImpl 26.05.2014 17:23:51 -- Exchange: activation succeeded [/npodoc] INFO info.magnolia.module.exchangesimple.BaseSyndicatorImpl 26.05.2014 17:23:51 -- Exchange: activation succeeded [/npodoc/2013/maart/rijksmuseum] I know that the first activation was a web page and the second was an image, but from the logs it is not obvious that the nodes with these paths are not in the same workspace. I would argue that whenever a string representation of a node is used, just a path is not enough. Prefixing the path with the workspace would help. It could look like this: INFO info.magnolia.module.exchangesimple.BaseSyndicatorImpl 26.05.2014 17:23:51 -- Exchange: activation succeeded [website:/npodoc] INFO info.magnolia.module.exchangesimple.BaseSyndicatorImpl 26.05.2014 17:23:51 -- Exchange: activation succeeded [media:/npodoc/2013/maart/rijksmuseum] This could even be in the toString() method of Node implementations? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Roman Kovařík [ 19/May/22 ] |
|
Hello, This ticket is now marked as closed due to one of the following reasons:
If you are still facing a problem or consider this issue still relevant, please feel free to re-open the ticket and we will reach out to you. Thank you, |