Log severity levels matter: A multivocal mapping
This addresses the challenge of producing reliable logging data for software developers and library creators, though it is incremental as it synthesizes existing information rather than introducing new methods.
The study tackled the problem of inconsistent and poorly defined log severity levels by conducting a multivocal systematic mapping across literature, libraries, and practitioner views, finding redundancy and convergence to six levels to improve log reliability.
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.