Log panic cause for better debugging #5091
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Ondřej Benkovský <ondrej.benkovsky@jamf.com>
yongtang
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: Ondřej Benkovský ondrej.benkovsky@jamf.com
Hello, we are using CoreDNS in our product and we recently noticed this behavior of CoreDNS with our custom plugins
1. Why is this pull request needed and what does it do?
Currently, when a panic occurs in CoreDNS it is logged like this:
which is not very helpful for debugging the issue related to the panic cause.
As part of this PR, I propose to add the cause of panic as part of the log to improve these logs, so it will for example look like this (note the last part saying that the cause was
index out of range)2. Which issues (if any) are related?
none
3. Which documentation changes (if any) need to be made?
none
4. Does this introduce a backward incompatible change or deprecation?
I don't think so