Updated logging.py for #9146

[Vijay-Arora]

Close #9146

[nicoddemus]

Tip: you can add Closes #9146 to the PR description, which serves both to link the PR to the issue, and GitHub will close the issue automatically after the PR is merged (just added it myself). 👍

[Vijay-Arora]

Thanks! But I see there are some checks which I see failed for eg. At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access. What should I do in this case? Should I update the PR or let it be?

[nicoddemus]

Thanks @Vijay-Arora! Left a few request for changes, please take a look.

cc @MetRonnie

[nicoddemus]

At least 1 approving review is required by reviewers with write access. What should I do in this case? Should I update the PR or let it be?

No change required on your side, this just means at least one maintainer needs to approve the PR.

[Vijay-Arora]

Thanks @Vijay-Arora! Left a few request for changes, please take a look.

cc @MetRonnie

Hey @nicoddemus, should I go ahead and make the requested changes and open a new PR for this? Also, I see some failures, do I need to make some changes for that too?

[nicoddemus]

Hey @nicoddemus, should I go ahead and make the requested changes and open a new PR for this?

Just push new commits to the same branch and the PR will update automatically.

Also, I see some failures, do I need to make some changes for that too?

Hmm ignore them for now, they don't seem related to your PR, I will investigate those later.

[Vijay-Arora]

Hey @nicoddemus, should I go ahead and make the requested changes and open a new PR for this?

Just push new commits to the same branch and the PR will update automatically.

Also, I see some failures, do I need to make some changes for that too?

Hmm ignore them for now, they don't seem related to your PR, I will investigate those later.

Cool, thanks, Making the changes now.

[MetRonnie]

Thanks for taking this on! As the author of the original issue, I've added my thoughts

[MetRonnie]

@nicoddemus I do wonder if the docstring for at_level should be updated at the same time, but I don't know whether the behaviour is also a threshold or not, I've never used it.

[pralkarz]

@MetRonnie Good catch. As far as I understand it, the behavior is the same for at_level as it also utilizes the setLevel method, therefore an update for its docs seems reasonable.

@Vijay-Arora Would you be interested in driving this one home? 😄

[Zac-HD]

Let's get this merged!

Requested changes were made.