Project

General

Profile

Feature #20864

Updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 1 day ago

## Background 

 Structured logging is a practice that organizes log data in a consistent, easily parseable format. Unlike traditional unstructured logs, which often consist of plain text entries, structured logs format information in key-value pairs or structured data formats such as JSON. This allows for better automation, searchability, and analysis of log data. 

 In Ruby, `Kernel#warn` is extremely useful, especially because there is a mechanism for loggers to redirect warnings using the `Warning` module. However, Currently, it is difficult possible to generate structured logs with `Kernel#warn` as all include some details about the positional arguments are converted to a single string, and arbitrary keyword options are rejected. 

 As a consequence, code like this current caller using `uplevel` for the current call stack. But it is not possible: possible to include details about exceptions. 

 ```ruby 
 begin 
   ... 
 rescue => error 
   warn "Something went wrong!", exception: error 
 end 
 ``` 

 It is very desirable Because of this, trying to have a standard interface in Ruby for emitting emit detailed structured warnings. logs from `warn` is tricky. 

 ## Proposal 

 I'd like to extend the current implementation propose another extension to log errors. We would allow `warn(..., **options)` to accept all options options, and forward them all to be forwarded to `Warning.warn`. 

 This would allow us to add more details to warnings and emit structured logs using `Warning.warn`. 

 A simple example of the proposed interface: 

 ```ruby 
 module Kernel 
   def warn(*arguments, uplevel: ..., **options) 
     # Existing processing of arguments -> message 
     ::Warning.warn(message, **options) 
   end 
 end 
 ``` 

 Current behaviour rejects any unknown options: 

 ``` 
 warn("Oops", exception: error) 
 # => <internal:warning>:50:in `warn': unknown keyword: :exception (ArgumentError) 
 ``` 

 I don't have an opinion about the implementation, but I wanted to get feedback on the interface.

Back