The choice of log severity level can be challenging and cause problems in producing reliable logging data. However, there is a lack of specifications and practical guidelines to support this challenge. In this study, we present a multivocal systematic mapping of log severity levels from peer-reviewed literature, logging libraries, and practitioners' views. We analyzed 19 severity levels, 27 studies, and 40 logging libraries. Our results show redundancy and semantic similarity between the levels and a tendency to converge the levels for a total of six levels. Our contributions help leverage the reliability of log entries: (i) mapping the literature about log severity levels, (ii) mapping the severity levels in logging libraries, (iii) a set of synthesized six definitions and four general purposes for severity levels. We recommend that developers use a standard nomenclature, and for logging library creators, we suggest providing accurate and unambiguous definitions of log severity levels.
翻译:伐木严重程度的选择可能具有挑战性,在制作可靠的伐木数据方面造成问题。然而,缺乏支持这一挑战的规格和实用指南。在本研究中,我们从同行审查的文献、伐木图书馆和从业者的观点中,对伐木强度水平进行了多维的系统绘图。我们分析了19个严重程度、27项研究和40个伐木图书馆。我们的结果显示,在水平之间存在冗余和语义相似,并趋向于在总共6级的水平上趋于一致。我们的贡献有助于利用日志条目的可靠性:(一) 绘制关于记录强度水平的文献,(二) 绘制伐木图书馆严重程度的文献,(三) 一套综合的6种定义,以及严重程度的4个一般目的。我们建议开发者使用标准术语,对于伐木图书馆的创建者,我们建议提供准确和毫不含糊的伐木强度水平定义。