I'm using Chisel and blackbox to run my chisel logic against a verilog register file.
The registerfile does not have reset signal so I expect the register to be randomly initialized.
I passed the --x-initial unique to verilator,
Basically this is how I launch the test:
private val backendName = "verilator"
"NOCDMA" should s" do blkwrite and blkread correctly (with $backendName)" in {
Driver.execute(Array("--fint-write-vcd","--backend-name",s"$backendName",
"--more-vcs-flags","--trace-depth 1 --x-initial unique"),
()=>new DMANetworkWithMem(memAddrWidth,memDataWidth)(nocDataWidth)(nNodesX,nNodesY)){
c => new DMANetworkRWTest(c)
}
}
But The data I read from the register file is all zero before I wrote anything to it.
The read data is correct after I wrote to it.
So, is there anything inside chisel that I need to tune or I did not do everything properly ?
Any suggestions?
I'm not certain, but I found the following issue on Verilator with a similar issue: https://github.com/verilator/verilator/issues/1399.
From skimming the above issue, I think you also need to pass +verilator+seed+<value> and +verilator+rand+reset+<value> at runtime. I am not an expert in the iotesters, but I believe you can add these runtime values through the iotesters argument: --more-vcs-c-flags.
Side note, I would also set --x-assign unique in Verilator if there are cases in the Verilog where runtime would otherwise inject an X (eg. out-of-bounds index).
I hope this helps!
I'm using Dataflow SDK 2.X Java API ( Apache Beam SDK) to write data into mysql. I've created pipelines based on Apache Beam SDK documentation to write data into mysql using dataflow. It inserts single row at a time where as I need to implement bulk insert. I do not find any option in official documentation to enable bulk inset mode.
Wondering, if it's possible to set bulk insert mode in dataflow pipeline? If yes, please let me know what I need to change in below code.
.apply(JdbcIO.<KV<Integer, String>>write()
.withDataSourceConfiguration(JdbcIO.DataSourceConfiguration.create(
"com.mysql.jdbc.Driver", "jdbc:mysql://hostname:3306/mydb")
.withUsername("username")
.withPassword("password"))
.withStatement("insert into Person values(?, ?)")
.withPreparedStatementSetter(new JdbcIO.PreparedStatementSetter<KV<Integer, String>>() {
public void setParameters(KV<Integer, String> element, PreparedStatement query) {
query.setInt(1, kv.getKey());
query.setString(2, kv.getValue());
}
})
EDIT 2018-01-27:
It turns out that this issue is related to the DirectRunner. If you run the same pipeline using the DataflowRunner, you should get batches that are actually up to 1,000 records. The DirectRunner always creates bundles of size 1 after a grouping operation.
Original answer:
I've run into the same problem when writing to cloud databases using Apache Beam's JdbcIO. The problem is that while JdbcIO does support writing up to 1,000 records in one batch, in I have never actually seen it write more than 1 row at a time (I have to admit: This was always using the DirectRunner in a development environment).
I have therefore added a feature to JdbcIO where you can control the size of the batches yourself by grouping your data together and writing each group as one batch. Below is an example of how to use this feature based on the original WordCount example of Apache Beam.
p.apply("ReadLines", TextIO.read().from(options.getInputFile()))
// Count words in input file(s)
.apply(new CountWords())
// Format as text
.apply(MapElements.via(new FormatAsTextFn()))
// Make key-value pairs with the first letter as the key
.apply(ParDo.of(new FirstLetterAsKey()))
// Group the words by first letter
.apply(GroupByKey.<String, String> create())
// Get a PCollection of only the values, discarding the keys
.apply(ParDo.of(new GetValues()))
// Write the words to the database
.apply(JdbcIO.<String> writeIterable()
.withDataSourceConfiguration(
JdbcIO.DataSourceConfiguration.create(options.getJdbcDriver(), options.getURL()))
.withStatement(INSERT_OR_UPDATE_SQL)
.withPreparedStatementSetter(new WordCountPreparedStatementSetter()));
The difference with the normal write-method of JdbcIO is the new method writeIterable() that takes a PCollection<Iterable<RowT>> as input instead of PCollection<RowT>. Each Iterable is written as one batch to the database.
The version of JdbcIO with this addition can be found here: https://github.com/olavloite/beam/blob/JdbcIOIterableWrite/sdks/java/io/jdbc/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/io/jdbc/JdbcIO.java
The entire example project containing the example above can be found here: https://github.com/olavloite/spanner-beam-example
(There is also a pull request pending on Apache Beam to include this in the project)
I am trying to process json files in a bucket and write the results into a bucket:
DataflowPipelineOptions options = PipelineOptionsFactory.create()
.as(DataflowPipelineOptions.class);
options.setRunner(BlockingDataflowPipelineRunner.class);
options.setProject("the-project");
options.setStagingLocation("gs://some-bucket/temp/");
Pipeline p = Pipeline.create(options);
p.apply(TextIO.Read.from("gs://some-bucket/2016/04/28/*/*.json"))
.apply(ParDo.named("SanitizeJson").of(new DoFn<String, String>() {
#Override
public void processElement(ProcessContext c) {
try {
JsonFactory factory = JacksonFactory.getDefaultInstance();
String json = c.element();
SomeClass e = factory.fromString(json, SomeClass.class);
// manipulate the object a bit...
c.output(factory.toString(e));
} catch (Exception err) {
LOG.error("Failed to process element: " + c.element(), err);
}
}
}))
.apply(TextIO.Write.to("gs://some-bucket/output/"));
p.run();
I have around 50,000 files under the path gs://some-bucket/2016/04/28/ (in sub-directories).
My question is: does it make sense that this takes more than an hour to complete? Doing something similar on a Spark cluster in amazon takes about 15-20 minutes. I suspect that I might be doing something inefficiently.
EDIT:
In my Spark job I aggregate all the results in a DataFrame and only then write the output, all at once. I noticed that my pipeline here writes each file separately, I assume that is why it's taking much longer. Is there a way to change this behavior?
Your jobs are hitting a couple of performance issues in Dataflow, caused by the fact that it is more optimized for executing work in larger increments, while your job is processing lots of very small files. As a result, some aspects of the job's execution end up dominated by per-file overhead. Here's some details and suggestions.
The job is limited rather by writing output than by reading input (though reading input is also a significant part). You can significantly cut that overhead by specifying withNumShards on your TextIO.Write, depending on how many files you want in the output. E.g. 100 could be a reasonable value. By default you're getting an unspecified number of files which in this case, given current behavior of the Dataflow optimizer, matches number of input files: usually it is a good idea because it allows us to not materialize the intermediate data, but in this case it's not a good idea because the input files are so small and per-file overhead is more important.
I recommend to set maxNumWorkers to a value like e.g. 12 - currently the second job is autoscaling to an excessively large number of workers. This is caused by Dataflow's autoscaling currently being geared toward jobs that process data in larger increments - it currently doesn't take into account per-file overhead and behaves not so well in your case.
The second job is also hitting a bug because of which it fails to finalize the written output. We're investigating, however setting maxNumWorkers should also make it complete successfully.
To put it shortly:
set maxNumWorkers=12
set TextIO.Write.to("...").withNumShards(100)
and it should run much better.
When handling POST, PUT, and PATCH requests on the server-side, we often need to process some JSON to perform the requests.
It is obvious that we need to validate these JSONs (e.g. structure, permitted/expected keys, and value types) in some way, and I can see at least two ways:
Upon receiving the JSON, validate the JSON upfront as it is, before doing anything with it to complete the request.
Take the JSON as it is, start processing it (e.g. access its various key-values) and try to validate it on-the-go while performing business logic, and possibly use some exception handling to handle vogue data.
The 1st approach seems more robust compared to the 2nd, but probably more expensive (in time cost) because every request will be validated (and hopefully most of them are valid so the validation is sort of redundant).
The 2nd approach may save the compulsory validation on valid requests, but mixing the checks within business logic might be buggy or even risky.
Which of the two above is better? Or, is there yet a better way?
What you are describing with POST, PUT, and PATCH sounds like you are implementing a REST API. Depending on your back-end platform, you can use libraries that will map JSON to objects which is very powerful and performs that validation for you. In JAVA, you can use Jersey, Spring, or Jackson. If you are using .NET, you can use Json.NET.
If efficiency is your goal and you want to validate every single request, it would be ideal if you could evaluate on the front-end if you are using JavaScript you can use json2.js.
In regards to comparing your methods, here is a Pro / Cons list.
Method #1: Upon Request
Pros
The business logic integrity is maintained. As you mentioned trying to validate while processing business logic could result in invalid tests that may actually be valid and vice versa or also the validation could inadvertently impact the business logic negatively.
As Norbert mentioned, catching the errors before hand will improve efficiency. The logical question this poses is why spend the time processing, if there are errors in the first place?
The code will be cleaner and easier to read. Having validation and business logic separated will result in cleaner, easier to read and maintain code.
Cons
It could result in redundant processing meaning longer computing time.
Method #2: Validation on the Go
Pros
It's efficient theoretically by saving process and compute time doing them at the same time.
Cons
In reality, the process time that is saved is likely negligible (as mentioned by Norbert). You are still doing the validation check either way. In addition, processing time is wasted if an error was found.
The data integrity can be comprised. It could be possible that the JSON becomes corrupt when processing it this way.
The code is not as clear. When reading the business logic, it may not be as apparent what is happening because validation logic is mixed in.
What it really boils down to is Accuracy vs Speed. They generally have an inverse relationship. As you become more accurate and validate your JSON, you may have to compromise some on speed. This is really only noticeable in large data sets as computers are really fast these days. It is up to you to decide what is more important given how accurate you think you data may be when receiving it or whether that extra second or so is crucial. In some cases, it does matter (i.e. with the stock market and healthcare applications, milliseconds matter) and both are highly important. It is in those cases, that as you increase one, for example accuracy, you may have to increase speed by getting a higher performant machine.
Hope this helps.
The first approach is more robust, but does not have to be noticeably more expensive. It becomes way less expensive even when you are able to abort the parsing process due to errors: Your business logic usually takes >90% of the resources in a process, so if you have an error % of 10%, you are already resource neutral. If you optimize the validation process so that the validations from the business process are performed upfront, your error rate might be much lower (like 1 in 20 to 1 in 100) to stay resource neutral.
For an example on an implementation assuming upfront data validation, look at GSON (https://code.google.com/p/google-gson/):
GSON works as follows: Every part of the JSON can be cast into an object. This object is typed or contains typed data:
Sample object (JAVA used as example language):
public class someInnerDataFromJSON {
String name;
String address;
int housenumber;
String buildingType;
// Getters and setters
public String getName() { return name; }
public void setName(String name) { this.name=name; }
//etc.
}
The data parsed by GSON is by using the model provided, already type checked.
This is the first point where your code can abort.
After this exit point assuming the data confirmed to the model, you can validate if the data is within certain limits. You can also write that into the model.
Assume for this buildingType is a list:
Single family house
Multi family house
Apartment
You can check data during parsing by creating a setter which checks the data, or you can check it after parsing in a first set of your business rule application. The benefit of first checking the data is that your later code will have less exception handling, so less and easier to understand code.
I would definitively go for validation before processing.
Let's say you receive some json data with 10 variables of which you expect:
the first 5 variables to be of type string
6 and 7 are supposed to be integers
8, 9 and 10 are supposed to be arrays
You can do a quick variable type validation before you start processing any of this data and return a validation error response if one of the ten fails.
foreach($data as $varName => $varValue){
$varType = gettype($varValue);
if(!$this->isTypeValid($varName, $varType)){
// return validation error
}
}
// continue processing
Think of the scenario where you are directly processing the data and then the 10th value turns out to be of invalid type. The processing of the previous 9 variables was a waste of resources since you end up returning some validation error response anyway. On top of that you have to rollback any changes already persisted to your storage.
I only use variable type in my example but I would suggest full validation (length, max/min values, etc) of all variables before processing any of them.
In general, the first option would be the way to go. The only reason why you might need to think of the second option is if you were dealing with JSON data which was tens of MBs large or more.
In other words, only if you are trying to stream JSON and process it on the fly, you will need to think about second option.
Assuming that you are dealing with few hundred KB at most per JSON, you can just go for option one.
Here are some steps you could follow:
Go for a JSON parser like GSON that would just convert your entire
JSON input into the corresponding Java domain model object. (If GSON
doesn't throw an exception, you can be sure that the JSON is
perfectly valid.)
Of course, the objects which were constructed using GSON in step 1
may not be in a functionally valid state. For example, functional
checks like mandatory fields and limit checks would have to be done.
For this, you could define a validateState method which repeatedly
validates the states of the object itself and its child objects.
Here is an example of a validateState method:
public void validateState(){
//Assume this validateState is part of Customer class.
if(age<12 || age>150)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Age should be in the range 12 to 120");
if(age<18 && (guardianId==null || guardianId.trim().equals(""))
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Guardian id is mandatory for minors");
for(Account a:customer.getAccounts()){
a.validateState(); //Throws appropriate exceptions if any inconsistency in state
}
}
The answer depends entirely on your use case.
If you expect all calls to originate in trusted clients then the upfront schema validation should be implement so that it is activated only when you set a debug flag.
However, if your server delivers public api services then you should validate the calls upfront. This isn't just a performance issue - your server will likely be scrutinized for security vulnerabilities by your customers, hackers, rivals, etc.
If your server delivers private api services to non-trusted clients (e.g., in a closed network setup where it has to integrate with systems from 3rd party developers), then you should at least run upfront those checks that will save you from getting blamed for someone else's goofs.
It really depends on your requirements. But in general I'd always go for #1.
Few considerations:
For consistency I'd use method #1, for performance #2. However when using #2 you have to take into account that rolling back in case of non valid input may become complicated in the future, as the logic changes.
Json validation should not take that long. In python you can use ujson for parsing json strings which is a ultrafast C implementation of the json python module.
For validation, I use the jsonschema python module which makes json validation easy.
Another approach:
if you use jsonschema, you can validate the json request in steps. I'd perform an initial validation of the most common/important parts of the json structure, and validate the remaining parts along the business logic path. This would allow to write simpler json schemas and therefore more lightweight.
The final decision:
If (and only if) this decision is critical I'd implement both solutions, time-profile them in right and wrong input condition, and weight the results depending on the wrong input frequency. Therefore:
1c = average time spent with method 1 on correct input
1w = average time spent with method 1 on wrong input
2c = average time spent with method 2 on correct input
2w = average time spent with method 2 on wrong input
CR = correct input rate (or frequency)
WR = wrong input rate (or frequency)
if ( 1c * CR ) + ( 1w * WR) <= ( 2c * CR ) + ( 2w * WR):
chose method 1
else:
chose method 2
After reading "What’s your/a good limit for cyclomatic complexity?", I realize many of my colleagues were quite annoyed with this new QA policy on our project: no more 10 cyclomatic complexity per function.
Meaning: no more than 10 'if', 'else', 'try', 'catch' and other code workflow branching statement. Right. As I explained in 'Do you test private method?', such a policy has many good side-effects.
But: At the beginning of our (200 people - 7 years long) project, we were happily logging (and no, we can not easily delegate that to some kind of 'Aspect-oriented programming' approach for logs).
myLogger.info("A String");
myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
...
And when the first versions of our System went live, we experienced huge memory problem not because of the logging (which was at one point turned off), but because of the log parameters (the strings), which are always calculated, then passed to the 'info()' or 'fine()' functions, only to discover that the level of logging was 'OFF', and that no logging were taking place!
So QA came back and urged our programmers to do conditional logging. Always.
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO) { myLogger.info("A String");
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.FINE) { myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
...
But now, with that 'can-not-be-moved' 10 cyclomatic complexity level per function limit, they argue that the various logs they put in their function is felt as a burden, because each "if(isLoggable())" is counted as +1 cyclomatic complexity!
So if a function has 8 'if', 'else' and so on, in one tightly-coupled not-easily-shareable algorithm, and 3 critical log actions... they breach the limit even though the conditional logs may not be really part of said complexity of that function...
How would you address this situation ?
I have seen a couple of interesting coding evolution (due to that 'conflict') in my project, but I just want to get your thoughts first.
Thank you for all the answers.
I must insist that the problem is not 'formatting' related, but 'argument evaluation' related (evaluation that can be very costly to do, just before calling a method which will do nothing)
So when a wrote above "A String", I actually meant aFunction(), with aFunction() returning a String, and being a call to a complicated method collecting and computing all kind of log data to be displayed by the logger... or not (hence the issue, and the obligation to use conditional logging, hence the actual issue of artificial increase of 'cyclomatic complexity'...)
I now get the 'variadic function' point advanced by some of you (thank you John).
Note: a quick test in java6 shows that my varargs function does evaluate its arguments before being called, so it can not be applied for function call, but for 'Log retriever object' (or 'function wrapper'), on which the toString() will only be called if needed. Got it.
I have now posted my experience on this topic.
I will leave it there until next Tuesday for voting, then I will select one of your answers.
Again, thank you for all the suggestions :)
With current logging frameworks, the question is moot
Current logging frameworks like slf4j or log4j 2 don't require guard statements in most cases. They use a parameterized log statement so that an event can be logged unconditionally, but message formatting only occurs if the event is enabled. Message construction is performed as needed by the logger, rather than pre-emptively by the application.
If you have to use an antique logging library, you can read on to get more background and a way to retrofit the old library with parameterized messages.
Are guard statements really adding complexity?
Consider excluding logging guards statements from the cyclomatic complexity calculation.
It could be argued that, due to their predictable form, conditional logging checks really don't contribute to the complexity of the code.
Inflexible metrics can make an otherwise good programmer turn bad. Be careful!
Assuming that your tools for calculating complexity can't be tailored to that degree, the following approach may offer a work-around.
The need for conditional logging
I assume that your guard statements were introduced because you had code like this:
private static final Logger log = Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class);
Connection connect(Widget w, Dongle d, Dongle alt)
throws ConnectionException
{
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle " + d + " to widget " + w);
Connection c;
try {
c = w.connect(d);
} catch(ConnectionException ex) {
log.warn("Connection failed; attempting alternate dongle " + d, ex);
c = w.connect(alt);
}
log.debug("Connection succeeded: " + c);
return c;
}
In Java, each of the log statements creates a new StringBuilder, and invokes the toString() method on each object concatenated to the string. These toString() methods, in turn, are likely to create StringBuilder instances of their own, and invoke the toString() methods of their members, and so on, across a potentially large object graph. (Before Java 5, it was even more expensive, since StringBuffer was used, and all of its operations are synchronized.)
This can be relatively costly, especially if the log statement is in some heavily-executed code path. And, written as above, that expensive message formatting occurs even if the logger is bound to discard the result because the log level is too high.
This leads to the introduction of guard statements of the form:
if (log.isDebugEnabled())
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle " + d + " to widget " + w);
With this guard, the evaluation of arguments d and w and the string concatenation is performed only when necessary.
A solution for simple, efficient logging
However, if the logger (or a wrapper that you write around your chosen logging package) takes a formatter and arguments for the formatter, the message construction can be delayed until it is certain that it will be used, while eliminating the guard statements and their cyclomatic complexity.
public final class FormatLogger
{
private final Logger log;
public FormatLogger(Logger log)
{
this.log = log;
}
public void debug(String formatter, Object... args)
{
log(Level.DEBUG, formatter, args);
}
… &c. for info, warn; also add overloads to log an exception …
public void log(Level level, String formatter, Object... args)
{
if (log.isEnabled(level)) {
/*
* Only now is the message constructed, and each "arg"
* evaluated by having its toString() method invoked.
*/
log.log(level, String.format(formatter, args));
}
}
}
class MyClass
{
private static final FormatLogger log =
new FormatLogger(Logger.getLogger(MyClass.class));
Connection connect(Widget w, Dongle d, Dongle alt)
throws ConnectionException
{
log.debug("Attempting connection of dongle %s to widget %s.", d, w);
Connection c;
try {
c = w.connect(d);
} catch(ConnectionException ex) {
log.warn("Connection failed; attempting alternate dongle %s.", d);
c = w.connect(alt);
}
log.debug("Connection succeeded: %s", c);
return c;
}
}
Now, none of the cascading toString() calls with their buffer allocations will occur unless they are necessary! This effectively eliminates the performance hit that led to the guard statements. One small penalty, in Java, would be auto-boxing of any primitive type arguments you pass to the logger.
The code doing the logging is arguably even cleaner than ever, since untidy string concatenation is gone. It can be even cleaner if the format strings are externalized (using a ResourceBundle), which could also assist in maintenance or localization of the software.
Further enhancements
Also note that, in Java, a MessageFormat object could be used in place of a "format" String, which gives you additional capabilities such as a choice format to handle cardinal numbers more neatly. Another alternative would be to implement your own formatting capability that invokes some interface that you define for "evaluation", rather than the basic toString() method.
In Python you pass the formatted values as parameters to the logging function. String formatting is only applied if logging is enabled. There's still the overhead of a function call, but that's minuscule compared to formatting.
log.info ("a = %s, b = %s", a, b)
You can do something like this for any language with variadic arguments (C/C++, C#/Java, etc).
This isn't really intended for when the arguments are difficult to retrieve, but for when formatting them to strings is expensive. For example, if your code already has a list of numbers in it, you might want to log that list for debugging. Executing mylist.toString() will take a while to no benefit, as the result will be thrown away. So you pass mylist as a parameter to the logging function, and let it handle string formatting. That way, formatting will only be performed if needed.
Since the OP's question specifically mentions Java, here's how the above can be used:
I must insist that the problem is not 'formatting' related, but 'argument evaluation' related (evaluation that can be very costly to do, just before calling a method which will do nothing)
The trick is to have objects that will not perform expensive computations until absolutely needed. This is easy in languages like Smalltalk or Python that support lambdas and closures, but is still doable in Java with a bit of imagination.
Say you have a function get_everything(). It will retrieve every object from your database into a list. You don't want to call this if the result will be discarded, obviously. So instead of using a call to that function directly, you define an inner class called LazyGetEverything:
public class MainClass {
private class LazyGetEverything {
#Override
public String toString() {
return getEverything().toString();
}
}
private Object getEverything() {
/* returns what you want to .toString() in the inner class */
}
public void logEverything() {
log.info(new LazyGetEverything());
}
}
In this code, the call to getEverything() is wrapped so that it won't actually be executed until it's needed. The logging function will execute toString() on its parameters only if debugging is enabled. That way, your code will suffer only the overhead of a function call instead of the full getEverything() call.
In languages supporting lambda expressions or code blocks as parameters, one solution for this would be to give just that to the logging method. That one could evaluate the configuration and only if needed actually call/execute the provided lambda/code block.
Did not try it yet, though.
Theoretically this is possible. I would not like to use it in production due to performance issues i expect with that heavy use of lamdas/code blocks for logging.
But as always: if in doubt, test it and measure the impact on cpu load and memory.
Thank you for all your answers! You guys rock :)
Now my feedback is not as straight-forward as yours:
Yes, for one project (as in 'one program deployed and running on its own on a single production platform'), I suppose you can go all technical on me:
dedicated 'Log Retriever' objects, which can be pass to a Logger wrapper only calling toString() is necessary
used in conjunction with a logging variadic function (or a plain Object[] array!)
and there you have it, as explained by #John Millikin and #erickson.
However, this issue forced us to think a little about 'Why exactly we were logging in the first place ?'
Our project is actually 30 different projects (5 to 10 people each) deployed on various production platforms, with asynchronous communication needs and central bus architecture.
The simple logging described in the question was fine for each project at the beginning (5 years ago), but since then, we has to step up. Enter the KPI.
Instead of asking to a logger to log anything, we ask to an automatically created object (called KPI) to register an event. It is a simple call (myKPI.I_am_signaling_myself_to_you()), and does not need to be conditional (which solves the 'artificial increase of cyclomatic complexity' issue).
That KPI object knows who calls it and since he runs from the beginning of the application, he is able to retrieve lots of data we were previously computing on the spot when we were logging.
Plus that KPI object can be monitored independently and compute/publish on demand its information on a single and separate publication bus.
That way, each client can ask for the information he actually wants (like, 'has my process begun, and if yes, since when ?'), instead of looking for the correct log file and grepping for a cryptic String...
Indeed, the question 'Why exactly we were logging in the first place ?' made us realize we were not logging just for the programmer and his unit or integration tests, but for a much broader community including some of the final clients themselves. Our 'reporting' mechanism had to be centralized, asynchronous, 24/7.
The specific of that KPI mechanism is way out of the scope of this question. Suffice it to say its proper calibration is by far, hands down, the single most complicated non-functional issue we are facing. It still does bring the system on its knee from time to time! Properly calibrated however, it is a life-saver.
Again, thank you for all the suggestions. We will consider them for some parts of our system when simple logging is still in place.
But the other point of this question was to illustrate to you a specific problem in a much larger and more complicated context.
Hope you liked it. I might ask a question on KPI (which, believe or not, is not in any question on SOF so far!) later next week.
I will leave this answer up for voting until next Tuesday, then I will select an answer (not this one obviously ;) )
Maybe this is too simple, but what about using the "extract method" refactoring around the guard clause? Your example code of this:
public void Example()
{
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO))
myLogger.info("A String");
if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.FINE))
myLogger.fine("A more complicated String");
// +1 for each test and log message
}
Becomes this:
public void Example()
{
_LogInfo();
_LogFine();
// +0 for each test and log message
}
private void _LogInfo()
{
if(!myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO))
return;
// Do your complex argument calculations/evaluations only when needed.
}
private void _LogFine(){ /* Ditto ... */ }
In C or C++ I'd use the preprocessor instead of the if statements for the conditional logging.
Pass the log level to the logger and let it decide whether or not to write the log statement:
//if(myLogger.isLoggable(Level.INFO) {myLogger.info("A String");
myLogger.info(Level.INFO,"A String");
UPDATE: Ah, I see that you want to conditionally create the log string without a conditional statement. Presumably at runtime rather than compile time.
I'll just say that the way we've solved this is to put the formatting code in the logger class so that the formatting only takes place if the level passes. Very similar to a built-in sprintf. For example:
myLogger.info(Level.INFO,"A String %d",some_number);
That should meet your criteria.
Conditional logging is evil. It adds unnecessary clutter to your code.
You should always send in the objects you have to the logger:
Logger logger = ...
logger.log(Level.DEBUG,"The foo is {0} and the bar is {1}",new Object[]{foo, bar});
and then have a java.util.logging.Formatter that uses MessageFormat to flatten foo and bar into the string to be output. It will only be called if the logger and handler will log at that level.
For added pleasure you could have some kind of expression language to be able to get fine control over how to format the logged objects (toString may not always be useful).
(source: scala-lang.org)
Scala has a annontation #elidable() that allows you to remove methods with a compiler flag.
With the scala REPL:
C:>scala
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.final (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.
6.0_16).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable
import scala.annotation.elidable
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable._
import scala.annotation.elidable._
scala> #elidable(FINE) def logDebug(arg :String) = println(arg)
logDebug: (arg: String)Unit
scala> logDebug("testing")
scala>
With elide-beloset
C:>scala -Xelide-below 0
Welcome to Scala version 2.8.0.final (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.
6.0_16).
Type in expressions to have them evaluated.
Type :help for more information.
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable
import scala.annotation.elidable
scala> import scala.annotation.elidable._
import scala.annotation.elidable._
scala> #elidable(FINE) def logDebug(arg :String) = println(arg)
logDebug: (arg: String)Unit
scala> logDebug("testing")
testing
scala>
See also Scala assert definition
As much as I hate macros in C/C++, at work we have #defines for the if part, which if false ignores (does not evaluate) the following expressions, but if true returns a stream into which stuff can be piped using the '<<' operator.
Like this:
LOGGER(LEVEL_INFO) << "A String";
I assume this would eliminate the extra 'complexity' that your tool sees, and also eliminates any calculating of the string, or any expressions to be logged if the level was not reached.
Here is an elegant solution using ternary expression
logger.info(logger.isInfoEnabled() ? "Log Statement goes here..." : null);
Consider a logging util function ...
void debugUtil(String s, Object… args) {
if (LOG.isDebugEnabled())
LOG.debug(s, args);
}
);
Then make the call with a "closure" round the expensive evaluation that you want to avoid.
debugUtil(“We got a %s”, new Object() {
#Override String toString() {
// only evaluated if the debug statement is executed
return expensiveCallToGetSomeValue().toString;
}
}
);