Skip to content

fix(log): scope provide logs to "provider" subsystem#11289

Open
lidel wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
improve-provider-logger-names
Open

fix(log): scope provide logs to "provider" subsystem#11289
lidel wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
improve-provider-logger-names

Conversation

@lidel
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lidel lidel commented Apr 20, 2026

Provide/reprovide messages from core/node/provider.go were emitted under core:constructor (the shared core/node constructor subsystem), making GOLOG_LOG_LEVEL and ipfs log level hard to target for provide visibility. Scope them to "provider", matching boxo's provider package so a single lever covers both layers.

Changes

  • core/node/provider.go: new providerLog at the "provider" subsystem, applied to 25 keystore/reprovide/strategy/throughput call sites
  • test/cli/provider_test.go: reprovide dedup subtest raises provider=info instead of core:constructor=info
  • docs/debug-guide.md: new "Known logger subsystems" section listing provider, dht/provider, dht/provider/lan, dsqueue
  • docs/environment-variables.md: link to the new section from under GOLOG_LOG_LEVEL

Provide/reprovide messages from core/node/provider.go were emitted
under core:constructor (the shared core/node constructor subsystem),
making GOLOG_LOG_LEVEL and `ipfs log level` hard to target for
provide visibility. Scope them to "provider", matching boxo's
provider package so a single lever covers both layers.

- core/node/provider.go: new providerLog at the "provider" subsystem,
  applied to 25 keystore/reprovide/strategy/throughput call sites
- test/cli/provider_test.go: reprovide dedup subtest raises
  provider=info instead of core:constructor=info
- docs/debug-guide.md: new "Known logger subsystems" section listing
  provider, dht/provider, dht/provider/lan, dsqueue
- docs/environment-variables.md: link to the new section from under
  GOLOG_LOG_LEVEL
@lidel lidel requested a review from guillaumemichel April 20, 2026 21:53
@lidel lidel added the skip/changelog This change does NOT require a changelog entry label Apr 20, 2026
@lidel lidel mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2026
5 tasks
@lidel lidel marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 22:41
@lidel lidel requested a review from a team as a code owner April 20, 2026 22:41
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

skip/changelog This change does NOT require a changelog entry

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant