[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Using the 'log' resource vs Chef::Log.<loglevel>

[Mike < >]

Thanks for the awesome answers - this is very helpful.

> How are log resources affected by resource cloning (CHEF-3694) ?
>
> All resource types are affected by resource cloning in the same way. If a
> resource's type+name match a previously defined resource's type+name, it
> will be created from a clone instead of created from scratch.

Will a log resource with a level of debug be created/updated when the
Chef run isn't in debug mode, and not be displayed? Or is the resource
evaluated at compile phase, and determined "we;re not running in debug
mode, don't add this to the collection"?

-M


On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Daniel DeLeo 
<
 >
 wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 8, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> Thanks.
>
> Does this impact resources updated each run? I believe a log resource
> counts as an updated one every run, correct?
>
> Yes, it's similar to an execute or ruby_block resource in this regard.
>
>
>
> From a pure idiom sense, which would be preferable to use? Can/should
> a recipe's logging be closer to the execution phase or not?
>
> Depends on the situation. Think about it from the perspective of a user of
> the recipe who hasn't read the code. Where is the message most useful?
>
>
>
> And I'm guessing that these are equivalent?
>
> Chef::Log.debug "Only seen when in debug mode"
>
> log "Only seen in debug mode" do
> level :debug
> end
>
>
> Aside from the compile/converge phase stuff (which will control where the
> log message actually appears), these are identical.
>
>
>
> How are log resources affected by resource cloning (CHEF-3694) ?
>
> All resource types are affected by resource cloning in the same way. If a
> resource's type+name match a previously defined resource's type+name, it
> will be created from a clone instead of created from scratch.
>
>
> -M
>
>
> --
> Daniel DeLeo
>