Repository navigation
Make configuration validation more strict #6216
Description
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Started some Accumulo servers processes with that changes in #6207 that removed port search properties. The server processes still had port search properties in the site config. The properties were ignored and nothing complained about them. Site config called this code and I suspect it ignored the port search properties because they had something like a tserver. prefix.
Describe the solution you'd like
Warn on properties that will never be used. Some prefixes in the accumulo config are meant to be extended by user and others are not. Maybe an annotation could be added to prefixes to denote if they can be extended or not. For example the tserver. prefix could have an annotation that specifies it can not be extended and the table.iterator prefix could have an annotation that specifies it can be extended. Probably only need one of the annotations, can treat absence as the opposite.
With this change the code could know that only having the tserver. prefix does not make a property valid.
Activity
dlmarion commentedon Mar 16, 2026
I wonder if it's the case that most of the prefix properties (COMPACTOR_PREFIX, GC_PREFIX, GENERAL_PREFIX, INSTANCE_PREFIX, MANAGER_PREFIX, MONITOR_PREFIX, RPC_PREFIX, SSERV_PREFIX and TSERV_PREFIX) are just not necessary. We have some properties that allow for custom properties (GENERAL_ARBITRARY_PROP_PREFIX, TABLE_ARBITRARY_PROP_PREFIX) and we could create others if needed.
keith-turner commentedon Mar 16, 2026
Looked at how a few of these are used and they are lightly used by validation code at least. Some are actually used to avoid hard coding the prefix, but most of the property definition code hard codes the prefix.
keith-turner commentedon Mar 16, 2026
Instead of an annotation we could have a new property type, like
PropertyType.CLOSED_PREFIX.ArbaazKhan1 commentedon Sep 18, 2026
I can take a look at this