We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
While working on updated tests, I (again) came across an issue with testing, specifically the integration testing.
When a restart is used in testing, the PID changes, so closing Puma requires some way to determine the new PID.
restart
A workaround is to always write a pid file, and read the PID in the teardown. Another option would be to write the PID in the log strings.
Would a change like the below be considered a breaking change?
Puma starting in single mode...
to:
Puma (pid: 3008) starting in single mode...
Rather read a string from IO rather than write read a file....
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hm, what’s wrong with the pidfile option?
Sent with GitHawk
Sorry, something went wrong.
Isn’t this already achievable via this PR? #1816
Just set your config to:
log_formatter do |str| "[#{Process.pid}]: #{str}" end
and it’ll output:
"[3008]: Puma starting in single mode...“
No branches or pull requests
While working on updated tests, I (again) came across an issue with testing, specifically the integration testing.
When a
restart
is used in testing, the PID changes, so closing Puma requires some way to determine the new PID.A workaround is to always write a pid file, and read the PID in the teardown. Another option would be to write the PID in the log strings.
Would a change like the below be considered a breaking change?
to:
Rather read a string from IO rather than write read a file....
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: