Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

fix: fix incorrect error logging format #422

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from
Open

fix: fix incorrect error logging format #422

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

0xwitty
Copy link

@0xwitty 0xwitty commented Jan 23, 2025

Description

The l.Error method from the log package doesn't support the %w formatting verb. This causes %w to be logged as a literal string instead of wrapping the error. I've updated the code to use the correct formatting for logging errors with log.Logger. This ensures errors are logged properly without losing context.

@0xwitty 0xwitty requested a review from a team as a code owner January 23, 2025 17:22
@coderabbitai coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Walkthrough

The pull request involves a minor modification to error logging in the validator.go file within the kroma-validator project. The change updates the error logging method for HTTP server shutdown, transitioning from a formatted error message to a key-value pair logging approach. This adjustment affects the log message structure without altering the underlying error handling or application logic.

Changes

File Change Summary
kroma-validator/validator.go Modified error logging for HTTP server shutdown from formatted string to key-value pair logging

The specific change transforms the log statement from:

l.Error("Error shutting down http server: %w", err)

to:

l.Error("Error shutting down http server", "err", err)

This modification likely reflects a change in the logging library's recommended usage or a standardization of logging practices within the project.

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

coderabbitai[bot]
coderabbitai bot reviewed Jan 23, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@coderabbitai coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
kroma-validator/validator.go (1)

Line range hint 201-201: Consider using structured logging format for consistency.

While outside the scope of this PR, consider updating this direct error logging to use the structured key-value pair format for consistency:

-v.l.Error(err.Error())
+v.l.Error("failed to fetch latest block number", "err", err)
📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a754925 and 3576858.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • kroma-validator/validator.go (1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
kroma-validator/validator.go (1)

57-57: LGTM! Correct logging format that aligns with the codebase patterns.

The change from %w formatting to structured key-value pair logging is correct and improves consistency with other error logging patterns in the file. This format enables better log parsing and filtering capabilities.

@nx-cloud Nx Cloud
Copy link

nx-cloud bot commented Jan 24, 2025 •
edited
Loading

View your CI Pipeline Execution ↗ for commit 3576858.

Command Status Duration Result
nx run-many --target=test ✅ Succeeded 1s View ↗
nx run-many --target=build ✅ Succeeded 2s View ↗

☁️ Nx Cloud last updated this comment at 2025-01-24 06:48:27 UTC

@0xwitty
Copy link
Author

0xwitty commented Jan 25, 2025

Pangssu seolaoh pls merge it

@0xwitty 0xwitty requested review from seolaoh and Pangssu January 26, 2025 08:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@coderabbitai coderabbitai[bot] coderabbitai[bot] left review comments

@seolaoh seolaoh Awaiting requested review from seolaoh

@Pangssu Pangssu Awaiting requested review from Pangssu

At least 3 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@0xwitty @Pangssu @seolaoh