refactor: lower log info when a field does not exists

[tabVersion]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

resolve #15525

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
• I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
• My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
• My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)

• My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

• My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

[BugenZhao]

I don't see how the change is beneficial. What advantage do users gain from lowering the level? Just "less scary"? 😄

[tabVersion]

I don't see how the change is beneficial. What advantage do users gain from lowering the level? Just "less scary"? 😄

Yes, because a user complains. I think the parser has to report if sth goes wrong but less important.

[BugenZhao]

I don't see how the change is beneficial. What advantage do users gain from lowering the level? Just "less scary"? 😄

Yes, because a user complains. I think the parser has to report if sth goes wrong but less important.

A user complains but what about the majority of others? Prior to this PR, they could easily identify the logs that require their attention by filtering the lines with the predicate level = WARN. Now their experiences are sacrificed just for the few edge cases.

Personally I don't find this PR reasonable, while still +1 for the original approach proposed in #15525. cc @xiangjinwu

[tabVersion]

I don't see how the change is beneficial. What advantage do users gain from lowering the level? Just "less scary"? 😄

Yes, because a user complains. I think the parser has to report if sth goes wrong but less important.

A user complains but what about the majority of others? Prior to this PR, they could easily identify the logs that require their attention by filtering the lines with the predicate level = WARN. Now their experiences are sacrificed just for the few edge cases.

I do not strongly hold for the pr, @fuyufjh proposed the idea on the meeting. Shall we discuss a bit more here?

Personally I don't find this PR reasonable, while still +1 for the original approach proposed in #15525. cc @xiangjinwu

I think the #15525 talks about it is expected to have NULL field in json encode, and #16191 is related to a (maybe wrong) impl in parser when handling delete event.

[xxchan]

If we really want this way, at least we can provide a prefix for this log e.g., risingwave_connector::parser::missing_field, so that users can turn off it on their own.

[stdrc]

If we really want this way, at least we can provide a prefix for this log e.g., risingwave_connector::parser::missing_field, so that users can turn off it on their own.

+1, or provide some config so that user can choose to enable (if they care about it) or disable such logs.