Consider bringing back kv Value downcasting #641
Labels
No labels
bug
duplicate
easy
enhancement
help wanted
invalid
question
rfc
structured-logging
wontfix
No milestone
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
gh-rust-lang/log#641
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
While working on a Rust application, I became interested in downcasting a
Valueassociated with a log record when using thekvfeature of thelogcrate. To my surprise, I discovered that this capability was removed when thekvfeature was stabilized:github.com/rust-lang/log@96dbf58ec0/src/kv/value.rs (L1100-L1107)In my view, there are compelling use cases for downcasting log record
Values: that enables different software components to process them in a loosely coupled way, effectively repurposing logRecords as a versatile, typed message-passing mechanism.For instance, imagine integrating an existing codebase that logs
anyhow::Errors withsentryreporting, with the requirement that generated Sentry events should include the error backtrace. WithValuedowncasting, this could be achieved by doing this at the logging site:And then, to emit Sentry events from these log records with the error backtrace, one could simply pass a custom mapper function to a
SentryLoggerthat retrieves theerrorvalue from the record, downcasts it to ananyhow::Error, calls thebacktrace()method on it, and attaches that backtrace to the Sentry event.Without record
Valuedowncasting, there isn’t an elegant solution for the scenario above. Approaches like using customserdeserializers or establishing an additional communication channel between log sites and logger implementations may work in certain cases, but they are far from ideal.On a different codebase, but this time proof of concept and open-source, I've also found downcasting useful for passing along typed status update messages that get formatted in the way most appropriate for the target environment by just switching between custom logger implementations.
I've scoured the repository for any issues or commits explaining the rationale for removing
Valuedowncasting but couldn’t find anything beyond a suggestion to file an issue if this is a feature "you rely on". Therefore, I’m opening this issue to understand the context of its removal and to inquire if adding it back is feasible. Are there any drawbacks or implementation constraints I might be overlooking?Edit: after giving it more thought, the Sentry integration example above perhaps could be solved by using the
downcastmethod available ondyn Error, asanyhow::Errors implement theErrortrait... But that's still not helpful for the different codebase example, and not applicable when introspectingValues other thanErrors is desired.Edit 2: nevermind the edit above,
anyhow::Errordoes not implementstd::error::Errorand thus cannot be downcasted like that.Thanks for the note @AlexTMjugador 👍 We did a lot of discussion back and forth in PRs while pruning and stabilizing these APIs, so it probably has all ended up buried.
Downcasting support was soft-deprecated in
logbecause it can be brittle. It is a useful tool to apply opportunistically, for example, to downcast a value to anIpAddrbefore attempting to parse it as one. Theanyhow::Errorcase is also a reasonable one, although the ideal long-term solution would be to use some stable backtrace API and capture errors asdyn Error + 'static.I'd be happy to revisit stabilizing downcasting.
Thanks for the reply @KodrAus, it's very appreciated!
I can understand how downcasting can indeed be brittle when considering the broader crate ecosystem, as Rust’s usual type-safety expectations could be undermined if duck typing in log record values gets overused across crates maintained by different people. If this sort of brittleness was the main concern for not stabilizing this feature, perhaps a clear warning in the docs advising crate authors to limit it to applications that control both logging and logger components or opportunistic use cases would be sufficient to mitigate any wider issues?