logging URI query params with lograge

The lograge gem for taming Rails logs by default will lot the path component of the URI, but leave out the query string/query params.

For instance, perhaps you have a URL to your app /search?q=libraries.

lograge will log something like:

method=GET path=/search format=html

The q=libraries part is completely left out of the log. I kinda want that part, it’s important.

The lograge README provides instructions for “logging request parameters”, by way of the params hash.

I’m going to modify them a bit slightly to:

  • use the more recent custom_payload config instead of custom_options. (I’m not certain why there are both, but I think mostly for legacy reasons and newer custom_payload? is what you should read for?)
  • If we just put params in there, then a bunch of ugly <ActionController::Parameters show up in the log if you have nested hash params. We could fix that with params.to_unsafe_h, but…
  • We should really use request.filtered_parameters instead to make sure we’re not logging anything that’s been filtered out with Rails 6 config.filter_parameters. (Thanks /u/ezekg on reddit). This also converts to an ordinary hash that isn’t ActionController::Parameters, taking care of previous bullet point.
  • (It kind of seems like lograge README could use a PR updating it?)
  config.lograge.custom_payload do |controller|
    exceptions = %w(controller action format id)
    params: controller.request.filtered_parameters.except(*exceptions)

That gets us a log line that might look something like this:

method=GET path=/search format=html controller=SearchController action=index status=200 duration=107.66 view=87.32 db=29.00 params={"q"=>"foo"}

OK. The params hash isn’t exactly the same as the query string, it can include things not in the URL query string (like controller and action, that we have to strip above, among others), and it can in some cases omit things that are in the query string. It just depends on your routing and other configuration and logic.

The params hash itself is what default rails logs… but what if we just log the actual URL query string instead? Benefits:

  • it’s easier to search the logs for actually an exact specific known URL (which can get more complicated like /search?q=foo&range%5Byear_facet_isim%5D%5Bbegin%5D=4&source=foo or something). Which is something I sometimes want to do, say I got a URL reported from an error tracking service and now I want to find that exact line in the log.
  • I actually like having the exact actual URL (well, starting from path) in the logs.
  • It’s a lot simpler, we don’t need to filter out controller/action/format/id etc.
  • It’s actually a bit more concise? And part of what I’m dealing with in general using lograge is trying to reduce my bytes of logfile for papertrail!


  • if you had some kind of structured log search (I don’t at present, but I guess could with papertrail features by switching to json format?), it might be easier to do something like “find a /search with q=foo and source=ef without worrying about other params)
  • To the extent that params hash can include things not in the actual url, is that important to log like that?
  • ….?

Curious what other people think… am I crazy for wanting the actual URL in there, not the params hash?

At any rate, it’s pretty easy to do. Note we use filtered_path rather than fullpath to again take account of Rails 6 parameter filtering, and thanks again /u/ezekg:

  config.lograge.custom_payload do |controller|
      path: controller.request.filtered_path

This is actually overwriting the default path to be one that has the query string too:

method=GET path=/search?q=libraries format=html ...

You could of course add a different key fullpath instead, if you wanted to keep path as it is, perhaps for easier collation in some kind of log analyzing system that wants to group things by same path invariant of query string.

I’m gonna try this out!

Meanwhile, on lograge…

As long as we’re talking about lograge…. based on commit history, history of Issues and Pull Requests… the fact that CI isn’t currently running (travis.org grr) and doesn’t even try to test on Rails 6.0+ (although lograge seems to work fine)… one might worry that lograge is currently un/under-maintained…. No comment on a GH issue filed in May asking about project status.

It still seems to be one of the more popular solutions to trying to tame Rails kind of out of control logs. It’s mentioned for instance in docs from papertrail and honeybadger, and many many other blog posts.

What will it’s future be?

Looking around for other possibilties, I found semantic_logger (rails_semantic_logger). It’s got similar features. It seems to be much more maintained. It’s got a respectable number of github stars, although not nearly as many as lograge, and it’s not featured in blogs and third-party platform docs nearly as much.

It’s also a bit more sophisticated and featureful. For better or worse. For instance mainly I’m thinking of how it tries to improve app performance by moving logging to a background thread. This is neat… and also can lead to a whole new class of bug, mysterious warning, or configuration burden.

For now I’m sticking to the more popular lograge, but I wish it had CI up that was testing with Rails 6.1, at least!

Incidentally, trying to get Rails to log more compactly like both lograge and rails_semantic_logger do… is somewhat more complicated than you might expect, as demonstrated by the code in both projects that does it! Especially semantic_logger is hundreds of lines of somewhat baroque code split accross several files. A refactor of logging around Rails 5 (I think?) to use ActiveSupport::LogSubscriber made it possible to customize Rails logging like this (although I think both lograge and rails_semantic_logger still do some monkey-patching too!), but in the end didn’t make it all that easy or obvious or future-proof. This may discourage too many other alternatives for the initial primary use case of both lograge and rails_semantic_logger — turn a rails action into one log line, with a structured format.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s