-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 642
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cider-log: multiline items #3612
Comments
Hi @vemv, |
@vemv I don't follow, what do you mean by "I've noticed that the newlines may be our fault sometimes". Another idea that came to my mind is: Maybe it's actually nice to see the printed exception sometimes, or the "thing" that spans multiple lines. By default we could show only the single/first line, but if the user presses a key (maybe TAB), the log line would expand and show on multiple lines. That key can be a toggle, you press it again and it goes back to a single line. This could be useful if you are fishing for something in the logs. Exceptions are probably better viewed in the stacktrace inspector, but for long strings that could be useful. I think you can also jump into the inspector and view long strings there. I believe I changed them to also be printed on multiple lines. |
I meant, maybe somewhere in logjam we use pr-str instead of str for exceptions. But I was probably wrong in saying that, the
This would sgtm! Assuming it would be reasonably cheap and would not compromise anything.
Yes, correct, that would be good reasoning for trimming the lines, guilt-free :) One last consideration: if we are to remove newlines, we shouldn't just remove the newlines, but also truncate everything after the first newline. The reason is that long lines are known to cause Emacs slowness. |
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, truncating according to |
I encountered this one today:
It's rendered as 3 lines, in red.
It seems no big deal, but perhaps we'd like to render these as a single line? Would be more compact. One can always inspect the context or stacktrace in detail, anyway.
Thoughts? @r0man
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: