Skip to content

Extra logging for fields when validation is disabled #824

@borkabu

Description

@borkabu

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Currently there are such options as AllowUnknownMsgFields and ValidateUserDefinedFields. We are working in an environment where dictionary changes faster than we would like it to happen. At the same time we do not want messages to be rejected when some new field appears. So we set AllowUnknownMsgFields=Y and ValidateUserDefinedFields=N to allow messages new fields to come through. However, quickfix does not really say when field has been allowed through because of disabled validation.

Describe the solution you'd like

I would like quickfix to log fields which would fail validation if these two options would be AllowUnknownMsgFields=N and ValidateUserDefinedFields=Y. Something like
User Defined Field X is detected
Unknown message field X is detected

Activity

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 14, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

I see that this might come in handy in one case or another. Want to submit a PR?
Edit: of course this should be disabled by default. :)

borkabu

borkabu commented on Jun 14, 2024

@borkabu
Author

Would it need an extra option, something like EnableValidationLogging? Or maybe a couple of those LogUnknownMsgFields and LogUserDefinedFields

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 14, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

To keep it simple, maybe just FieldValidationLogging with a default of N.

borkabu

borkabu commented on Jun 17, 2024

@borkabu
Author

One more thing related to this ticket. In the same manner I need to be able not to validate Enums, and log Unknown Enum value X for tag Y is detected, when the logging is on. So, it would require to add ValidateEnumValues flag (default Y).

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 17, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

So, it would require to add ValidateEnumValues flag (default Y).

If you need that separate, OK with me. Otherwise I have nothing against having only FieldValidationLogging as config option.

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 25, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

@borkabu I don't know if you already started creating a PR for this: just wanted to let you know that I will merge #831 in due course which moves the validation settings into a separate class. But it will probably not affect you since you only want to act on the result of the validation and do not want to change the validation settings themselves.

linked a pull request that will close this issue on Jun 29, 2024
borkabu

borkabu commented on Jun 29, 2024

@borkabu
Author

Submitted PR.
I wonder if I do another PR against 2.3.1, what is the chance for 2.3.2 to be released?

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 29, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

Next release will be 3.0.0.
I don't think there will be another 2.3.x unless for critical fixes.

borkabu

borkabu commented on Jun 29, 2024

@borkabu
Author

Any thoughts on timeline for 3.0.0 then?

chrjohn

chrjohn commented on Jun 29, 2024

@chrjohn
Member

Probably in the next weeks

added theissue type on May 14, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      Participants

      @borkabu@chrjohn

      Issue actions

        Extra logging for fields when validation is disabled · Issue #824 · quickfix-j/quickfixj