？Do we want to continue halting when trying to disable a controller that doesn't exist in the disableable list

[carlisia]

When a user passes in a configuration setting to disable a controller, and that setting does not match the controller name of one of the disableable controllers, the server logs with a Fatalf.

The question is: do we want to continue this behavior? Or is this too austere?

Discussion thread:
#2838 (comment)

[nrb]

I vote yes - the user should be notified that they are trying to disable something that doesn't exist.

If we don't halt, then we end up running a controller that they didn't want, because it wasn't matched against the incorrectly-entered name.

[ashish-amarnath]

@nrb That's a fair point.
I am going to close this issue as resolved as this came out from a discussion that I started.