Hello! Thank you for the opinion!
The following messages (Exception and its message) are fairly descriptive. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 21:35, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > Hello Ilya, > > It's fine to use ERROR level if an operation can't be completed due to > missing parameters. That's, in fact, an exception/error. What needs to be > changed is texts of messages so that everyone understands what exactly > happened and how to address a failure. > > -- > Denis > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 5:45 AM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > It seems that we have subj behavior since the earliest days if Apache > > Ignite. > > > > If you send a REST command with error in it (such as missing "keys" for > > getAll), you will get a nice > > [2018-10-30 22:22:14,021][ERROR][rest-#61061][GridCacheCommandHandler] > > Failed to execute cache command: GridRestCacheRequest > > error in your logs. > > > > Which is probably an overkill since ERROR usually means unexpected and > > severe errors in application code as opposed to user input validation > > errors. > > > > This made worse by the fact that you can have some automatic REST client > do > > a lot of incorrect requests, spam your logs with thousands of such > ERRORs. > > The error is returned to client but it is also tee'd to log. > > > > What we could do: > > - Move log level from ERROR to WARN or even INFO. > > - Handle REST user input validation errors differently from Ignite > internal > > errors by introducing new exception class, logging it as INFO or maybe > just > > returning to user. > > - Third funny option? > > > > WDYT? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Ilya Kasnacheev > > >
