upscmd/upsrw: make the "OK" without "TRACKING" warning visible…#3389
Open
jimklimov wants to merge 1 commit intonetworkupstools:masterfrom
Open
upscmd/upsrw: make the "OK" without "TRACKING" warning visible…#3389jimklimov wants to merge 1 commit intonetworkupstools:masterfrom
upscmd/upsrw: make the "OK" without "TRACKING" warning visible…#3389jimklimov wants to merge 1 commit intonetworkupstools:masterfrom
Conversation
…le; introduce NUT_QUIET_OK_NOTRACKING to hide it though [networkupstools#3383] Signed-off-by: Jim Klimov <jimklimov+nut@gmail.com>
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
…introduce
NUT_QUIET_OK_NOTRACKINGenvvar to hide it thoughCloses: #3383
Example:
Note that both the warning and the value returned by the server and reported by
upscmd/upsrw(e.g.OKor an error code) are currently printed tostderr. Hopefully nobody relies on parsing that stream, as there may be various other outputs there anyway. Maybe the value from server should be reported onstdout, but that would be a separate issue.