[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3445?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15210382#comment-15210382
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on KAFKA-3445:
---------------------------------------
GitHub user rnpridgeon opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1132
KAFKA-3445
Currently the property TASKS_MAX_CONFIG is not validated against
nonsensical values such as 0. This patch leverages the Range.atLeast() method
to ensure value is at least 1.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/rnpridgeon/kafka KAFKA-3445
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1132.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #1132
----
commit 8617218300d5af70a4dc62ac4de77f443291b5ed
Author: Ryan P <[email protected]>
Date: 2016-03-24T14:56:11Z
KAFKA-3445
add validator to TASKS_MAX_CONFIG
----
> ConnectorConfig should validate TASKS_MAX_CONFIG's lower bound limit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3445
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3445
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: config
> Reporter: Ryan P
> Priority: Trivial
> Labels: newbie
> Attachments: KAFKA-3445.patch
>
>
> I'll be the first to admit this is a bit nit picky any property marked with
> Importance.HIGH should be guarded against nonsensical values.
> With that said I would like to suggest that TASKS_MAX_CONFIG be validating
> against a lower bound limit of 1.
> I do understand this is unlikely to happen and the configuration is
> nonsensical but there is no penalty for stopping someone from trying it out.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
