)]}'
{"specs/in_progress/request_tagging_logging.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":7433,"name":"Richard Hawkins","email":"richard.hawkins@rackspace.com","username":"hurricanerix"},"change_message_id":"1b56cfea69f31b694b7e788f619981be0ef2c19c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"None."},{"line_number":21,"context_line":""},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"To tag a particular request/every \u0027x\u0027 requests, which would undergo more detailed logging."},{"line_number":23,"context_line":""},{"line_number":24,"context_line":"Problem Description"},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_b15631d0","line":22,"updated":"2016-03-16 17:29:53.000000000","message":"I think the spec should be updated to explain exactly what \"more detailed logging\" means.\n\nIf it isn\u0027t specifically one thing (for example something configurable from a list of things), then details on the options to be created would be nice.","commit_id":"1a9e9315a31e7c8bdf05ee338227bd0b11d2d9b3"},{"author":{"_account_id":7433,"name":"Richard Hawkins","email":"richard.hawkins@rackspace.com","username":"hurricanerix"},"change_message_id":"1b56cfea69f31b694b7e788f619981be0ef2c19c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":25,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"Reasons for detailed logging:"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":""},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"- A Swift user is having problems, which we cannot recreate but could tag this user request for more logging."},{"line_number":29,"context_line":""},{"line_number":30,"context_line":"- In order to better investigate a cluster for bottlenecks/problems - Internal user (admin/op) wants additional info on some situations where the client is getting inconsistent container listings. With the Swift-inspector, we can tell what node is not returning the correct listings."},{"line_number":31,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_91a69551","line":28,"updated":"2016-03-16 17:29:53.000000000","message":"Maybe some examples of the kinds of extra details, not normally captured, that would help with each of these situations.","commit_id":"1a9e9315a31e7c8bdf05ee338227bd0b11d2d9b3"},{"author":{"_account_id":7433,"name":"Richard Hawkins","email":"richard.hawkins@rackspace.com","username":"hurricanerix"},"change_message_id":"1b56cfea69f31b694b7e788f619981be0ef2c19c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":40,"context_line":"- Handlers – ‘Inspector-Handlers’: not implemented (meant to return the account/container/object servers that were contacted in the request) ‘Inspector-Handlers-Proxy’: returns the proxy that handled the request"},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"- Nodes - ‘Inspector-Nodes’: returns what account/container/object servers the path resides on ‘Inspector-More-Nodes’: returns extra nodes for handoff."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":""},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"Changes:"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":""},{"line_number":45,"context_line":"- Add logging inspector to the above inspectors , which would enable detailed logging for tagged requests."},{"line_number":46,"context_line":"- Add the capability to let the system decide (instead of the client) to tag a request and nice to add rules to trigger actions like extra logging etc."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_b1dc7113","line":43,"updated":"2016-03-16 17:29:53.000000000","message":"Maybe change this to \"changes to Swift-Inspector\" to make it clear that it needs to be updated to support auto-tagging based on things like a % of requests.","commit_id":"1a9e9315a31e7c8bdf05ee338227bd0b11d2d9b3"},{"author":{"_account_id":7433,"name":"Richard Hawkins","email":"richard.hawkins@rackspace.com","username":"hurricanerix"},"change_message_id":"1b56cfea69f31b694b7e788f619981be0ef2c19c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":108,"context_line":"Security"},{"line_number":109,"context_line":"--------"},{"line_number":110,"context_line":""},{"line_number":111,"context_line":"None."},{"line_number":112,"context_line":""},{"line_number":113,"context_line":"Testing"},{"line_number":114,"context_line":"-------"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":2,"id":"1af94dfe_644ce942","line":111,"updated":"2016-03-16 17:29:53.000000000","message":"If Siwft-Inspector is used for this task.  It should be noted that some of the existing features allows a user to request the primary and handoff nodes that an object lives on.  This data could be considered sensitive by some administrators.  So it might be worth documenting that this is a possibility, ensuring that care is taking going forward so administrators do not accidentally leak this kind of information out.","commit_id":"1a9e9315a31e7c8bdf05ee338227bd0b11d2d9b3"}]}