Hilary James Oliver

With timestamps, these log lines are really verbose: ``` 2020-05-29T12:24:34+12:00 INFO - [y.1] status=running: (received)succeeded at 2020-05-29T12:24:33+12:00 for job(02) ``` We could at least put the second timestamp ("recieved at"),...

@oliver-sanders, I agree with all suggestions above. I like the idea of using a TASK logging level for task messages, so long as they are not "demoted" in the sense...

Also, not very difficult to implement. It will break a bunch of functional tests, but they'll be relatively easy to fix. I'll optimistically attach a "small" label :grin:

> 10) Remove flow labels if only one flow is active. So long as we're careful with the definition of "active" here. If we hold the main flow, then trigger...

Yes, that will be sufficient :+1: (Just saying, "active" has to mean "there are tasks present with this flow label" - but those tasks don't themselves have to be "active"!)

(In case anyone plans to work on this in the near future, note there are some cosmetic changes to task proxy logging already coming in #4300).

Updated terminology (for logging of failures): > Failed is no more important than succeeded if the failure is handled correctly. - ... if failure is *expected* or success is *optional*...

> Ideas: > > * Don't log the flow numbers if no additional flows have been created (useless info). True if the only flow number in the whole run is...

### flow number logging proposal On current master, flow numbers are not part of the task/job ID so should probably go outside of the square brackets. ``` [cycle/task/job] (flows) MESSAGE...

Note https://github.com/cylc/cylc-flow/issues/4419#issuecomment-999181650 may have an impact flow number logging (and on task ID).