[Filebeat] Fix id for config map #37545
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -113,14 +113,15 @@ data: | |
| filebeat.yml: |- | ||
| filebeat.inputs: | ||
| - type: filestream | ||
| id: kubernetes-container-logs | ||
| paths: | ||
| - /var/log/containers/*.log | ||
| parsers: | ||
| - container: ~ | ||
| prospector: | ||
| scanner: | ||
| fingerprint.enabled: true | ||
| fingerprint.length: 300 | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not an error, it's a warning and it's totally normal to have it until the file is large enough to be picked up. The warning needs to be there so the user knows why there are no events coming from a file yet. Reducing the fingerprint might cause collisions in file identity, lowering the value must be done only if the user is 100% sure that the new amount of characters is always unique for each file. Please keep the value as it is now. There was a problem hiding this comment. Thank you for the explanation @rdner , so the warning does not cause unexpected behavior? I will remove that line in that case. There was a problem hiding this comment. @constanca-m The warning is just to notify the user why the ingestion of the file got delayed. Perhaps we could re-phrase this warning to be more clear and less error-looking. Ideas are welcome. It does not cause any incorrect/unexpected behaviour, it's a normal state of things. |
||
| symlinks: true | ||
| file_identity.fingerprint: ~ | ||
| processors: | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These substitutions should work only in autodiscover, not in regular input configuration, AFAIK.
I see @gsantoro made this change in #37401
How was it tested?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was not correctly tested in that PR, this is a fix to that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@constanca-m My point is rather if this was not tested, how can we trust the rest of the changes from that PR? Perhaps we need to ask @gsantoro to re-test those changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hello @rdner , sorry that was my fault. It was an unintended change. I'll do some testing now anyway
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have now tested this. it works as expected with this PR changes. thanks @constanca-m for catching this