wirego_remote(rust): Introduce logger#46
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As we talked recently, better logging was one of the points that I was meant to work on :)
Since wirego is a crate that is later used in binaries (aka implemented plugins), it does not instantiate a logger by itself, but uses
logcrate and lets the user use any logging frontend (you may see changes in both the wirego crate and the example). That is the behavior that is recommended:If we wanted to initialize the logger in the crate, we could potentially break the plugin if the user wanted to use some different logging frontend, thus that's probably the best solution - safe and allowing users to do anything they want (including having no logs at all).