[pront]

Summary

Misspelled settings such as request.retry_atempts, and fields unused by the selected authentication strategy, can currently load successfully without taking effect. Add configuration-loading warnings and a deprecation notice so users can correct these settings before a future release rejects them.

Changes

• Check for ignored fields in the shared loader, covering flattened structs, enum variants, aliases, and component directories. Arbitrary-key maps remain supported.
• Use the generated schema for diagnostics; Serde still determines which configurations load. Schema mismatches conservatively skip the check. Mark fields consumed and discarded by the custom HTTP authentication deserializer explicitly. Documented settings that are inactive in a selected mode are outside this deprecation.
• Carry field-path warnings through startup, HTTP-provider reloads, and strict validation without logging values. Log the complete warning list together so repeated loads respect the existing rate limit. Add migration guidance.

References

Follows #26840, now merged into master.

Related: #23188, #26611.

Vector configuration

For example, these HTTP authentication and sink request settings now produce warnings:

# In an HTTP server source:
auth:
  strategy: bearer
  token: example-token
  username: unused

# In an HTTP sink:
request:
  retry_atempts: 3

Remove the unused username and correct retry_atempts to retry_attempts.

How did you test this PR?

• All 110 selected configuration-loading, HTTP-provider, authentication, and CLI tests passed. The five new tests focus on warning output, valid and invalid configurations, provider reloads, and strict CLI validation; existing loading tests cover interpolation and merging.
• Manually checked a minimal HTTP build with a provider polling every second and a 60-second log limit: seven fetches emitted each initial warning once. Normal validation succeeded; --deny-warnings returned configuration error 78.
• Scoped Clippy, formatting, Markdown, and deprecation checks passed. Rendered the website and verified the migration link, anchor, and clarified deprecation scope.
• Full documentation regeneration was stopped at the local disk-space limit; the edited pages and migration link were verified through a direct website build.

Does this PR include user facing changes?

• Yes. Announced through the deprecation notice; no separate changelog fragment is needed.
• No.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-28T16:35:42.228348Z	7f8d852	Manual request
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-28T16:35:50.311201Z	7f8d852	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 453cd543dd

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[datadoghq-integration]

Feature-limited binaries can lose all ignored-field diagnostics, and validation with --deny-warnings does not reject the new warnings.

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Bits Code Review · Commit 453cd54}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 5c5aed8ce8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ac894a6153

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[pront]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🚀

Reviewed commit: 7f8d852dc9

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7f8d852dc9

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

• You comment "@codex security review"
• A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.