Missing 'log' method to serve as a drop-in replacement for 'console'

[sompylasar]

I'd like to replace all console.* calls to loglevel.* calls but I discovered that there is no log method which is widely used with console. The info method does not fit well because the browser console highlights the info message with an icon making these messages somewhat more specific than default logging.

Any chance adding log?

[pimterry]

I'd suggest using debug instead, for starters, since most browsers treat that as the standard default unmessed-around version.

Anyway, I'm a bit averse to adding an actually adding a new case for .log(), because it doesn't fit well within the range of levels. Every single other logging tool I'm aware of uses the same set (trace/debug/info/warn/error), and the consistency there is useful. In addition, I think because it's inconsistent, it's not easy to tell how that fits in the scale. Does it log when you're at error level, or at info level, or what? Not clear to be, and certainly not likely to be clear to other library users.

I see your point about easy migration though. Would adding loglevel.log as an alias for loglevel.debug solve your problem?

[sompylasar]

No, it does not. The browser console outputs the log and debug messages
differently.

[mroderick]

Anyway, I'm a bit averse to adding an actually adding a new case for .log(), because it doesn't fit well within the range of levels. Every single other logging tool I'm aware of uses the same set (trace/debug/info/warn/error), and the consistency there is useful. In addition, I think because it's inconsistent, it's not easy to tell how that fits in the scale. Does it log when you're at error level, or at info level, or what? Not clear to be, and certainly not likely to be clear to other library users.

For me it is important that loglevel's api looks familiar to developers from non-JavaScript platforms.

@sompylasar you can always decorate or wrap loglevel after loading it, or even create a plugin if you want.

I use these two methods in a current project, so that including loglevel on a webpage is optional.

function info() {
    if (log) {
        log.info.apply(null, arguments);
    }
}

function error() {
    if (log) {
        log.error.apply(null, arguments);
    }
}

[sompylasar]

If non-JS developers are the target audience of this library, this should
likely be stated. For me this library is a wrapper around the browser
console which handles all of its inconsistencies in a small amount of code.

Decorating loglevel won't add a loglevel.log wrapper around
console.log hence this issue. There is no public API to wrap any method
of the browser console object. Moreover, a decorator won't prevent
loglevel from touching cookies and localStorage (that's another issue).

The browser console renders console.info output with an (i) icon next
to the log message making the message somewhat special (compared to a plain
log message without any color or icon).

[pimterry]

Which browser are you using that renders .debug and .log differently? In both Chrome and Firefox locally I see exactly the same thing. Chrome's own docs actually describe it as identical to console.log. Is there another browser that's not matching up with that?

Non-JS developers aren't explicitly the target of this library, but you can't ignore context. Pretty much every other logging library everywhere, JS and otherwise, uses these levels. They're the standard log levels and I'm not going to deviate from that standard, because it's definitely going to be confusing to a substantial part of the userbase (anybody who has used any other logging libraries).

I am quite happy to add an explicit alias, which it sounds like would solve the practical element of your problem (being able to quickly swap console for loglevel), if we can work out what level is suitable to alias to.

I still don't think it's a good idea to actively use that though, except just to get started easily. This library isn't just a wrapper for console.log, it also provides the basic level of log level management that you need in any serious logging environment, and unfilterable logging (which I think is what you're suggesting) does not fit in that model (and is generally not a good idea in any meaningful codebase).

I'm also curious why you don't want to persist the configured log level locally in your cookies/localStorage. Any particular reason for that? I'd originally added it because otherwise it's very fiddly to get log output for your app startup code without changing the live codebase. Is there a downside to this that you're hitting?

[sompylasar]

I use the latest Google Chrome, the devtools console renders debug in
blue color, log in black color, info in black color with a blue info
icon on the left.

I needed a tiny library that copes with console inconsistencies and is
browserifiable/webpackable. For my case I forked and patched loglevel to
remove persistence and add log as a second method on the INFO level
(see my fork:
https://github.com/sompylasar/loglevel/blob/master/lib/loglevel.js#L77 ). I
am not suggesting to use the same level for all logging, I am suggesting to
wrap every logging method the browser provides.

I understand your thoughts on persistence: you want to visit your app in
production, tamper with your own storage and read the logs. It's a good
idea. But if the persistence is hardcoded into the logging library, it
touches the environment without express permission from the app author. I
see this as putting the persistence part into a separate optional module
which lets configure the cookie and the storage or opt out of persistence,
and using loglevel.setLevel(loglevelPersistence.getLogLevel()) once in
the app's entry point. No further code changes are needed.

[ramumb]

I'd like to +1 adding a "log" method. I just ran into this same issue while integrating loglevel. It's such a common method that it needs to be in the lib; I'd dare say that it's more often used the "info".

[tauren]

I'll throw my two cents into the mix:

Problems

console.trace sucks for trace level logging

I avoid using console.trace unless I want to actually see a stack trace. This is because Chrome shows the stack trace expanded, which clutters up the console. I don't feel it is a good method to use for the trace level of a logging tool.

However, by not using log.trace with loglevel, I've limited myself to only 4 levels (error, warn, info, and debug). This is annoying because I often would like to add trace level logs for things that are deeper than debug. But I do not want to see stack traces for them.

Note that console.warn and console.error in Chrome also include stack traces, but they are much more usable since the traces are collapsed. I only have an issue with console.trace.

Not taking full advantage of browser log styling

It is important to consider that Chrome styles console.log, console.debug, console.info, console.warn, and console.error differently. However, loglevel doesn't take full advantage of this by not supporting console.log. IMO, this is a major downside of loglevel at this time.

Making log.log an alias for some other loglevel will not solve this. We really need a new loglevel for console.log.

App environment is affected by loglevel

I agree with @sompylasar that many app developers don't want their logging tool to impact the app environment without permission. However, the local storage feature is useful and think it makes sense to continue to support it.

Proposed Solution

I propose the following enhancements be made to loglevel:

• add a verbose log level between debug andtrace
• add a log.verbose method that maps to console.log
• add a log.log method that maps to console.log
• add a configuration option that disables/enables local storage features

I disagree with @mroderick regarding solving this by decorating log methods or creating a plugin. As soon as any wrapper is used around loglevel, the browser will report logs as coming from the wrapping code's file and line number instead of the actual file and line of the log call within your application.

I am willing to make these improvements and create a PR, but I'd like to hear from @pimterry and others that this proposal would be acceptable.

[olegstepura]

Very good point @tauren 👍
I've just discovered loglevel and tried to use it. I have a lot of server-side coding experience in Scala and PHP together with client-side scripting and I totally agree with you. I cannot accept blue text color for debug messages in console. +1 for PR

One extra thing I did not find in documentation is if I can reset (persisted) log level after debugging session finished. There seem to be no log.reset* methods.

The rest is very good (the right source of each message is a greatest pros of this library), ability to persist log level is also very cool.

[victornpb]

+1 to points made in @tauren reply

I added a new level by
log.verbose = log.methodFactory('log', .5);

[shellscape]

piling on here, noting early comments in this thread it's important to point out that console.debug has since been deprecated and is currently treated as a noop in the latest versions of modern browsers.

[victornpb]

@shellscape the recommendation on MDN is to use console.log() instead of console.debug().

Following the pattern it would become log.log(), looks kind of weird.

[shellscape]

@victornpb I've implemented logging wrappers in the past, and we've always defaulted to the "plain" old log, equivalent to console.log was log(...). Wouldn't be unreasonable that the function by default logged. Appearances aside, given that this is a browser-first and browser-oriented script, it would make more sense to follow browser convention.

A further little tidbit, console.debug in node has also been relegated to a noop and it's not even listed in the documentation for Console https://nodejs.org/api/console.html.

The argument for log.debug was probably sound 2.5 years ago, but times have changed.

[pimterry]

I'd rather not have a log.log method. As in my first posts way above, it's not a common log level in most other libraries, it's not obvious where it fits in the semantic order of levels, and it would be a breaking change anyway, which I'd really like to avoid.

I do totally agree we need to find a solution now that console.debug seems to have been quietly killed though. I need to think about it further, but in principle I think I'd be happy to make log.debug start using console.log under the hood, instead of console.debug. How would people feel about that?