"LoggingAuditor: No print(), No Silent Catches"

print() in production, errors swallowed in silence, and os.Logger calls that leak private data — the hygiene of knowing what your code did.

---

Logging is how you find out what happened when you weren’t watching. Bad logging hygiene means either no signal (a print() that vanishes in Release, an error caught and dropped) or too much (a logger call that prints a user’s private data to the device console). LoggingAuditor catches both ends.

What it catches

// ❌ logging.print-statement — print() in production; invisible in Release
print("loaded \(user.email)")

// ❌ logging.catch-without-logging — an error caught and silently dropped
do { try save() } catch { }

// ❌ logging.silent-try — try? with no explanation
let data = try? Data(contentsOf: url)
// ✅ // silent: an unreadable cache file is simply skipped
let data = try? Data(contentsOf: url)

// ❌ logging.missing-privacy — os.Logger interpolating data with no privacy annotation
logger.info("token: \(token)")            // leaks to the console
// ✅ logger.info("token: \(token, privacy: .private)")

Representative rule IDs: logging.print-statement, logging.catch-without-logging, logging.silent-try, logging.missing-privacy, logging.no-os-logger-import, logging.bare-logger-init.

The try? rule is one I meet constantly in my own first-pass code — three times this project’s own gate caught me discarding an error without a // silent: reason, and each time the fix was to write down why the error was safe to drop. That’s the rule working as intended: not “never use try?,” but “never discard an error without saying why.” Adjacency is strict and the comment is recorded — searchable, never silent.

Try it

quality-gate --check logging

---

Source: github.com/jpurnell/quality-gate-swift