Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improved handling of unnecessary Cloudtrail messages #666

Open
damianharouff opened this issue Oct 27, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Improved handling of unnecessary Cloudtrail messages #666

damianharouff opened this issue Oct 27, 2022 · 1 comment

Comments

@damianharouff
Copy link

damianharouff commented Oct 27, 2022

While setting up the Cloudtrail input, customer noted the following ERROR in their server.log:

2022-10-27T13:27:38.655-04:00 ERROR [CloudtrailSNSNotificationParser] Parsing exception. com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonParseException: Unrecognized token 'CloudTrail': was expecting ('true', 'false' or 'null') at [Source: (String)"CloudTrail validation message."; line: 1, column: 11] at com.fasterxml.jackson.core.JsonParser._constructError([JsonParser.java:1804](http://jsonparser.java:1804/)) ~[graylog.jar:?]

Per #80 the Cloudtrail input will skip processing/continue executing past messages it does not understand, and per #249 we acknowledge that this is an unnecessary message.

However, this negatively impacts the customer experience by adding ERROR lines to their server.log with a scary-looking stack dump, and if customer is attempting to set up the Cloudtrail input, will be mindful of log lines that we specify to be ERROR.

A more ideal situation would be to parse the message type, and present something like "Cloudtrail validation message encountered, skipping processing for unnecessary message." at reduced log priority than ERROR.

HS-1155337333

@damianharouff
Copy link
Author

This has been additionally noted by another customer via HS-1632979835.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants