PropertiesMigrationListener wrongly reports property as deprecated

[martinvisser]

With the following configuration:

spring:
  kafka:
    producer:
      client-id: some-id
      ssl:
        key-password: secret
        key-store-location: classpath:keystore.jks # line 18
        key-store-password: secret
        trust-store-location: classpath:truststore.jks
        trust-store-password: secret

I get the following message:

[WARN] org.springframework.boot.context.properties.migrator.PropertiesMigrationListener - 
The use of configuration keys that have been renamed was found in the environment:

Property source 'migrate-Config resource 'class path resource [application-integration.yml]' via location 'optional:classpath:/'':
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.keystore-location
		Line: 18
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.key-store-location
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.keystore-password
		Line: 19
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.key-store-password
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.truststore-location
		Line: 20
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.trust-store-location
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.truststore-password
		Line: 21
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.trust-store-password

Property source 'Config resource 'class path resource [application-integration.yml]' via location 'optional:classpath:/'':
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.keystore-location
		Line: 18
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.key-store-location
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.keystore-password
		Line: 19
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.key-store-password
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.truststore-location
		Line: 20
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.trust-store-location
	Key: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.truststore-password
		Line: 21
		Replacement: spring.kafka.producer.ssl.trust-store-password


Each configuration key has been temporarily mapped to its replacement for your convenience. To silence this warning, please update your configuration to use the new keys.

But I already changed them to the new one. It's just a warning, but it seems to be incorrect. Also interesting it shows it twice with different property source names.

[mhalbritter]

This indeed looks like a bug. The org.springframework.boot.context.properties.migrator.PropertiesMigrationReporter#getMatchingProperties returns it as deprecated properties, because this line:

ConfigurationProperty match = propertySource.getConfigurationProperty(metadataName);

returns a non-null match when invoked with e.g. "spring.kafka.producer.ssl.keystore-location". I assume this is because of the relaxed mapping support in SpringIterableConfigurationPropertySource and "keystore" and "key-store" map to the same relaxed value.

However, I can't reproduce that you get those messages two times. Could you maybe provide a small sample which reproduces this double printing issue?

[martinvisser]

I see you added 2.7.x milestone, but forgot to mention this (also) happened using Spring Boot 3.1.0

[mhalbritter]

I suspect the underlying cause is in Boot 2.7.x too. When we fix that bug there, we forward merge to 3.0.x and 3.1.x.

[p-palanisami]

I am a new contributor. Shall I take this bug?

[mhalbritter]

Hey, thanks for the offer. If you want to help, keep an eye out on first timer issues and ideal for contribution issues.

I think this issue could get quite complicated and is not suitable for getting started.

[Wzy19930507]

Hi, may i pick it up

---

i'll chang code at

spring-boot/spring-boot-project/spring-boot/src/main/java/org/springframework/boot/context/properties/source/SpringIterableConfigurationPropertySource.java

Lines 96 to 112 in 0ef87f5

	public ConfigurationProperty getConfigurationProperty(ConfigurationPropertyName name) {
	if (name == null) {
	return null;
	}
	ConfigurationProperty configurationProperty = super.getConfigurationProperty(name);
	if (configurationProperty != null) {
	return configurationProperty;
	}
	for (String candidate : getMappings().getMapped(name)) {
	Object value = getPropertySource().getProperty(candidate);
	if (value != null) {
	Origin origin = PropertySourceOrigin.get(getPropertySource(), candidate);
	return ConfigurationProperty.of(this, name, value, origin);
	}
	}
	return null;
	}

after change

class SpringIterableConfigurationPropertySource extends SpringConfigurationPropertySource
		implements IterableConfigurationPropertySource, CachingConfigurationPropertySource {

    @Override
    public ConfigurationProperty getConfigurationProperty(ConfigurationPropertyName name) {
	    for (String candidate : getMappings().getMapped(name)) {
	        if(!isFieldDashNameMatch(candidate, name)) {
                return null;
            }
            Object value = getPropertySource().getProperty(candidate);
            if (value != null) {
                Origin origin = PropertySourceOrigin.get(getPropertySource(), candidate);
                return ConfigurationProperty.of(this, name, value, origin);
            }
        }
    }

    private static class Mappings {
	    public static boolean isFieldDashNameMatch(String propertyName, ConfigurationPropertyName fieldName) {
            ConfigurationPropertyName name = this.reverseMappings.get(propertyName);
            if (name == null || fieldName == null) {
                return false;
            }
            if (name.getNumberOfElements() != fieldName.getNumberOfElements()) {
                return false;
            }
            for (int i = 0; i < name.getNumberOfElements(); i++) {
                String element = name.getElement(i, Form.Dash);
                String fieldElement = fieldName.getElement(i, Form.Dash);
                if (!ObjectUtils.nullSafeEquals(element, fieldElement)) {
                    return false;
                }
            }
    	    return true;
    	}
    }

}

[philwebb]

@Wzy19930507 You're welcome to submit a PR but I'm afraid with our 3.2 release so imminent we won't be able to provide a lot of guidance at this time. In the future, it's better to start a draft PR rather than describing the code changes you intend to make as a comment in the issue. It's very hard for us to discuss changes when they are issue comments and it adds a lot of noise for folks watching the issue.