[Rpm-maint] [rpm-software-management/rpm] Add rpmlogOnce() and rpmlogReset() (PR #3417)

[Michal Domonkos]

> recs is not really suited for this. It is a vector so lookups are not cheap. It only stores WARNING and above. We might want to link to the recs entry but even that does not really solve anything if the lower prio entries are missing.

Sure, the logic for populating `recs` would have to be adjusted, my point is that message de-duplication can also be thought of as filtering, and we already do by-mask filtering in `rpmlogPrintByMask()`.

What I'm getting at is that we could just record all the messages and only decide how to collapse (de-duplicate) them into a single meaningful message after the fact, perhaps even using the information in those messages somehow. Yes, we need to do that on-the-fly as well, of course, but that would just be a special case of that.

That said, I haven't thought this through too much, it's just my gut feeling speaking :smile: Having this specialized `seen` map also works and we can always refactor it in the future, it's not a big deal.

> The additional string is there for cases where the message contains differing info. E.g. the package name or location of the error. Imagine suppressing a missing macro message. This will give a file and line number. And you do want that so you can look at the place where things go wrong in case it is just a typo. You still want to suppress the follow up messages if the macro is actually missing. So having a key allows to put them all under the same category.

Indeed. I had this in the back of my mind too, just needed to see it written down for it to click. Thanks!

> I don't think we will have logging objects for every possible occasion but only for majors things like builds or transactions. So I expect the domain to stay relevant even if we no longer have global logging. But that might just me being unimaginative.

Right, it's just that "context" coincides with "domain" in a way, but we already use the term "context" for a different purpose in the logging module, so yep. 

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3417#issuecomment-2449336976
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3417/c2449336976 at github.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/attachments/20241031/3969a545/attachment-0001.html>