repository_memory: Add rule id to malformed configuration error

[hefekranz]

Related issue

#383

Proposed changes

.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guidelines
• I have read the security policy
• I confirm that this pull request does not address a security vulnerability. If this pull request addresses a security
  vulnerability, I confirm that I got green light (please contact [email protected]) from the maintainers to push the changes.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation within the code base (if appropriate)
• I have documented my changes in the developer guide (if appropriate)

Further comments

I didn't think a test was necessary here...

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[aeneasr]

Awesome, thanks! I've got an idea how to improve it even further :)

[aeneasr]

We can actually include the full rule here :)

Suggested change

	Errorf("Rule %s uses a malformed configuration and all URLs matching this rule will not work. You should resolve this issue now.", check.ID)
	WithField("rule_id", check.ID).
	WithField("rule", check).
	Error("A rule uses a malformed configuration and all URLs matching this rule will not work. You should resolve this issue now.")

What do you think?

[hefekranz]

looks good in the code, but it will print out bytes.

ERRO[0000] Rule chatbot-webhook uses a malformed configuration and all URLs matching this rule will not work. You should resolve this issue now. error="authenticator matching this route is misconfigured or disabled" rule="{chatbot-webhook 0xc0004c20c0 [{oauth2_client_credentials []}] {keto_engine_acp_ory [123 10 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 114 101 113 117 105 114 101 100 95 97 99 116 105 111 110 34 58 32 34 99 97 108 108 34 44 10 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 34 114 101 113 117 105 114 101 100 95 114 101 115 111 117 114 99 101 34 58 32 34 99 104 97 116 98 111 116 58 119 101 98 104 111 111 107 34 10 32 32 32 32 32 32 125]} [{noop []}] [] {false } <nil>}" rule_id=chatbot-webhook
Maybe just the rule_id field then?

[aeneasr]

Yeah, makes sense!

[aeneasr]

Thank you!

[hefekranz]

👏