[jira] [Comment Edited] (ZOOKEEPER-2517) jute.maxbuffer is ignored

["Edward Ribeiro (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2517?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15459520#comment-15459520 ] 

Edward Ribeiro edited comment on ZOOKEEPER-2517 at 9/2/16 8:32 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi [~arshad.mohammad], 

A few comments:

{code}
        String value = getProperty(key);
        if (value == null) {
            return defaultValue;
        } else {
            try {
                return Integer.parseInt(value);
            } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
                if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
                    LOG.debug("Configured value {} for property {} can not be parsed to int. Using default value {}.",
                            value, key, defaultValue);
                }
            }
        }
        return defaultValue;
{code}

can be rewritten as:

{code}
        String value = getProperty(key);
        if (value != null && value.trim().length > 0) {
            try {
                return Integer.parseInt(value);
            } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
                    LOG.warn("Configured value {} for property {} can not be parsed to int. Using default value {}.",
                            value, key, defaultValue);
            }
        }
        return defaultValue;
{code}

Also, I think a parser error of a parameter can be more insidious and dangerous bug to relegate it to debug only logging. I think it should be at least {{LOG.WARN}}. wdyt?

Finally, I don't like the name of the unit test: {{testGetInt}}. I think it's a bit vague so a more verbose, but clear name would be nice. Maybe {{testIntegerRetrievalFromProperty}} or something else... I no good with naming, btw.

Best regards!




was (Author: eribeiro):
Hi [~arshad.mohammad], 

A few comments:

{code}
        String value = getProperty(key);
        if (value == null) {
            return defaultValue;
        } else {
            try {
                return Integer.parseInt(value);
            } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
                if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
                    LOG.debug("Configured value {} for property {} can not be parsed to int. Using default value {}.",
                            value, key, defaultValue);
                }
            }
        }
        return defaultValue;
{code}

can be rewritten as:

{code}
        String value = getProperty(key);
        if (value != null) {
            try {
                return Integer.parseInt(value);
            } catch (NumberFormatException e) {
                if (LOG.isDebugEnabled()) {
                    LOG.debug("Configured value {} for property {} can not be parsed to int. Using default value {}.",
                            value, key, defaultValue);
                }
            }
        }
        return defaultValue;
{code}

Also, I think a parser error of a parameter can be more insidious and dangerous bug to relegate it to debug only logging. I think it should be at least {{LOG.WARN}}. wdyt?

Finally, I don't like the name of the unit test: {{testGetInt}}. I think it's a bit vague so a more verbose, but clear name would be nice. Maybe {{testIntegerRetrievalFromProperty}} or something else... I no good with naming, btw.

Best regards!



> jute.maxbuffer is ignored
> -------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-2517
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2517
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.5.2
>            Reporter: Benjamin Jaton
>            Assignee: Arshad Mohammad
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 3.5.3
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-2517-01.patch, ZOOKEEPER-2517.patch
>
>
> In ClientCnxnSocket.java the parsing of the system property is erroneous:
> {code}packetLen = Integer.getInteger(
>   clientConfig.getProperty(ZKConfig.JUTE_MAXBUFFER),
>   ZKClientConfig.CLIENT_MAX_PACKET_LENGTH_DEFAULT
> );{code}
> Javadoc of Integer.getInteger states "The first argument is treated as the name of a system property", whereas here the value of the property is passed.
> Instead I believe the author meant to write something like:
> {code}packetLen = Integer.parseInt(
>   clientConfig.getProperty(
>     ZKConfig.JUTE_MAXBUFFER,
>     String.valueOf(ZKClientConfig.CLIENT_MAX_PACKET_LENGTH_DEFAULT)
>   )
> );{code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)