Configuration validation exceptions must tell validation rules/values

[zdenek-jonas]

Our Documentation in page:
https://manual.docs.microstream.one/data-store/configuration/properties
says:
Minimum file size in bytes of a storage file to avoid merging with other files during housekeeping.
Must be greater than 1, maximum is 2GB.

It should be there, which format should be used.

When i write: 500
I received:
one.microstream.storage.exceptions.StorageExceptionInvalidConfiguration: Invalid file size: 500
Why is this number invalid?

When i write 10Mb
I received:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Nonsensical size limits: min file size = 10000000, max file size = 8388608
I would write: Min size limit cannot be higher as actual max size limit. This number has many '0', its hard to read it.

Ok, I write: 20000000
I received:
one.microstream.storage.exceptions.StorageExceptionInvalidConfiguration: Invalid file size: 20000000
Why is this number invalid?

I write: 5kb
dann passt.
(previous edit was from ZJ via my computer during a meeting)

[tm-ms]

This problem is split over two layers/projects: Core and EmbeddedConfiguration.

The "Nonsensical ..." point was a problem in the core project.
I have overhauled all component types of StorageConfiguration to perform proper validation with meaningful exception messages.

More specifically, the following types now have "Validation" sub-type using a unified pattern for validating parameters.
StorageChannelCountProvider
StorageHousekeepingController
StorageDataFileEvaluator
StorageEntityCacheEvaluator

The following types just check for non-null values, so I left them with simple notNull(...) checks:
StorageFileProvider
StorageBackupSetup

See next comment for the second aspect.

[tm-ms]

The other problems (with "Invalid file size") are located in the EmbeddedConfiguration project.
They are also technically wrong as far as I can see. The file bounds can have arbitrary values inside the minimum and maximum limit.
This has to be fixed there.
In order to prevent redundant validation code, the "Validation" sub types' methods described above can/should be used.

[fh-ms]

Adapted validators in EmbeddedConfiguration project.

[fh-ms]

Ok, I write: 20000000
I received:
one.microstream.storage.exceptions.StorageExceptionInvalidConfiguration: Invalid file size: 20000000
Why is this number invalid?

File sizes without suffix are now interpreted as bytes.

[zdenek-jonas]

Retest:
There are still something.
I just define the smallestSizeOfDataFile setDataFileMinimumSize:
0: correct:

Specified file minimum size of 0 is not in the valid range of [1024, 2147483647].

2147483647: a little nonsense, the maximum size is given in negative numbers, and I did not specify it.

java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Specified file maximum size of -2147483648 is smaller than the specified file minimum size of 2147483647.

[tm-ms]

There's a copy&paste error in the exception for the maximum size check:

// can technically never happen for now, but the max value might change
if(fileMaximumSize >= maximumFileSize())
{
	 // (17.02.2020 TM)EXCP: proper exception
	throw new IllegalArgumentException(
		"Specified file maximum size of " + fileMinimumSize
		+ " is not in the valid range of ["
		+ minimumFileSize() + ", " + maximumFileSize() + "]."
	);
}

However, since fileMaximumSize is an int and maximumFileSize() is hard-coded to Integer.MAX_VALUE, I fail to see how that exception can ever happen. Hence the comment.
No idea how fileMinimumSize could have become negative except if that value was passed by the user.

[fh-ms]

Fixed copy&paste error, and also parameter mixup in configuration layer.

[tm-ms]

Okay, I was confused: The exception message was about the "smaller" case, not the case I pasted the code snippet for.
Nevertheless, 2 points of stupidity on my part in the pasted code:
1.) fileMinimumSize must still be fileMaximumSize
2.) ">=" is wrong. It must be ">".

edit: Ah, FH already fixed my stupidity before my comment.

[zdenek-jonas]

Ok, test successful.