Hi Artur, Thanks for the update! This looks good to me.
What do you think about also adding a summary message at WARN level, like: > WARN 42 unknown configs were ignored and logged at DEBUG level. That way, we can quit spamming the logs while still preserving the same level of visibility in the case of accidental misconfiguration. Thanks, -John On Wed, Feb 5, 2020, at 08:18, Artur Burtsev wrote: > Hi, > > I updated KIP > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=142641934 > and submitted PR accordingly to the discussion in this thread > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8043 > > Please have a look, > Artur > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:22 PM Stanislav Kozlovski > <stanis...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > Hey Artur, > > > > Perhaps changing the log level to DEBUG is the simplest approach. > > > > I wonder if other people know what the motivation behind the WARN log was? > > I'm struggling to think up of a scenario where I'd like to see unused > > values printed in anything above DEBUG. > > > > Best, > > Stanislav > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:52 PM Artur Burtsev <artj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Indeed changing the log level for the whole AbstractConfig is not an > > > option, because logAll is extremely useful. > > > > > > Grouping warnings into 1 (with the count of unused only) will not be a > > > good option for us either. It will still be pretty noisy. Imagine we > > > have 32 partitions and scaled up the application to 32 instances then > > > we still have 32 warnings per application (instead of 96 now) while we > > > would like to have 0 warnings because we are perfectly aware of using > > > schema.registry.url and its totally fine, and we don't have to be > > > warned every time we start the application. Now imagine we use more > > > than one consumer per application, then it will add another > > > multiplication factor to these grouped warnings and we still have a > > > lot of those. So I would say grouping doesn't help much. > > > > > > I think adding extra logger like > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ProducerConfig.unused" could be > > > another good option. That would leave the existing interface untouched > > > and give everyone an option to mute irrelevant warnings. > > > > > > To summarize, I still can see 3 options with its pros and cons > > > discussed in the thread: > > > 1) extra config with interface to handle unused > > > 2) change unused warn to debug > > > 3) add extra logger for unused > > > > > > Please let me know what do you think. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Artur > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 11:07 AM Stanislav Kozlovski > > > <stanis...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Would printing all the unused configurations in one line, versus N > > > > lines, > > > > be more helpful? I know that it would greatly reduce the verbosity in > > > > log > > > > visualization tools like Kibana while still allowing us to see all the > > > > relevant information without the need for an explicit action (e.g > > > > changing the log level) > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 3:13 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Artur, > > > > > > > > > > That’s a good point. > > > > > > > > > > One thing you can do is log a summary at WARN level, like “27 > > > > > configurations were ignored. Ignored configurations are logged at > > > > > DEBUG > > > > > level.” > > > > > > > > > > I looked into the code a little, and these log messages are generated > > > in > > > > > AbstractConfig (logAll and logUnused). They both use the logger > > > associated > > > > > with the relevant config class (StreamsConfig, ProducerConfig, etc.). > > > The > > > > > list of all configs is logged at INFO level, and the list of unused > > > configs > > > > > is logged at WARN level. This means that it's not possible to silence > > > the > > > > > unused config messages while still logging the list of all configs. > > > > > You > > > > > could only silence both by setting (for example) ProducerConfig logger > > > to > > > > > ERROR or OFF. > > > > > > > > > > If it's desirable to be able to toggle them independently, then you > > > > > can > > > > > create a separate logger for unused configs, named something like > > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ProducerConfig.unused". Then, you > > > can > > > > > leave the log at WARN, so it would continue to be printed by default, > > > and > > > > > anyone could disable it by setting > > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ProducerConfig.unused" to ERROR or > > > OFF, > > > > > without disturbing the rest of the config log messages. > > > > > > > > > > It's simpler without the extra logger, but you also get less control. > > > Do > > > > > you think the extra control is necessary, versus printing a summary at > > > WARN > > > > > level? > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, at 04:26, Artur Burtsev wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed changing log level to debug would be the easiest and I think > > > > > > that would be a good solution. When no one object I'm ready to move > > > > > > forward with this approach and submit a MR. > > > > > > > > > > > > The only minor thing I have – having it at debug log level might > > > > > > make > > > > > > it a bit less friendly for developers, especially for those who just > > > > > > do the first steps in Kafka. For example, if you misspelled the > > > > > > property name and trying to understand why things don't do what you > > > > > > expect. Having a warning might save some time in this case. Other > > > than > > > > > > that I cannot see any reasons to have warnings there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Artur > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:01 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Artur! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For reference, here is the kip: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-552%3A+Add+interface+to+handle+unused+config > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, these warnings are kind of a nuisance. Would it be > > > feasible > > > > > just to leverage log4j in some way to make it easy to filter these > > > > > messages? For example, we could move those warnings to debug level, or > > > even > > > > > use a separate logger for them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019, at 07:23, Artur Burtsev wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This KIP provides a way to deal with a warning "The > > > configuration {} > > > > > > > > was supplied but isn't a known config." when it is not relevant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Artur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best, > > > > Stanislav > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best, > > Stanislav >
