Adjust logger levels to use info for side-effects

[stephane]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.50000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 86.1%. Comparing base (cc70073) to head (15198c7).
⚠️ Report is 42 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
django_auth_adfs/backend.py	87.5%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main    #293   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   86.1%   86.1%           
=====================================
  Files         11      11           
  Lines        556     556           
=====================================
  Hits         479     479           
  Misses        77      77           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
django_auth_adfs/backend.py	86.4% <87.5%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[JonasKs]

Hi, and thank you 😊 I think the only reason I didn't want to do this in the past was because of the potential dashboards and warnings people may have set up.

I don't really know if it makes sense to keep the potential of a broken dashboard in favor of fixing these to be more sensible - especially with Sentry being way more implemented than it was back when I created this.

I approve. What do you think @sondrelg ?

EDIT: oh, I thought you had lowered them from error to info. I'm more in favor of making them all info-statements than making more error-logs. It generates so much Sentry noise.

[sondrelg]

At least for my usage, it would be nice to only log errors when something needs to be explicitly handled by a user. All our projects are set up to propagate error logs to Sentry, so that defines that for us, sort of 🤷 Maybe using warning over error for most of these would be a good solution?

[JonasKs]

I agree. I'm for info+warning and remove all error logs basically.

[sondrelg]

What was your rationale here @stephane?