On Saturday, August 10, 2013 4:21:35 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Roy Smith <> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you've got two different handlers which are both getting the same
> > loggingvents and somehow they both end up in your stderr stream.
> > Likely? Maybe not, but if you don't have any logging code in the test
> > at all, it becomes impossible. You can't have a bug in a line of code
> > that doesn't exist (yeah, I know, that's a bit of a handwave).
>
> Likely? Very much so, to the extent that it is, if not a FAQ,
> certainly a Not All That Uncommonly Asked Question. So many times
> someone places logging code in something that gets called twice, and
> ends up with two handlers. Personally, I much prefer to debug with
> straight-up 'print' - much less hassle. I'd turn to the logging module
> only if I actually need its functionality (logging to some place other
> than the console, or leaving the log statements in and {en|dis}abling
> them at run-time).
Yes, I definitely need the NUATAQ sheet for Python.
I'm using logging for debugging, because it is pretty straightforward and can
be activated for a small section of the module. My modules run long (3,000
lines or so) and finding all those dastardly print statements is a pain, and
littering my code with "if debug: print message" clauses. Logging just makes it
simple.
Josh
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
