[ux-design-patrol] Inconsistent type-error wording in new Kafka partitioner unmarshaler

[github-actions]

Recent commits have introduced UI/UX patterns that diverge from established patterns elsewhere in the codebase. The following inconsistency reduces design consistency for users.

Design Drift Findings

1. New Kafka partitioner error message diverges from established "expected..., found ..." style and includes a typo

Commit(s): 035b4bb6d979bbe5f89d7cc7e24f7476f94243fe

New pattern (introduced by commit):

return nil, fmt.Errorf("unmarshaled value shoud be a map, found %T", val)

Existing pattern (established elsewhere):

msg := fmt.Sprintf("expected dictionary, found %T", subData)

return fmt.Errorf("'%s' expected to be a list, found %T", section, p)

Location of new pattern: x-pack/otel/extension/kafkapartitionerextension/unmarshaler.go:29

Location of existing pattern:

• libbeat/common/schema/mapstriface/mapstriface.go:115
• filebeat/fileset/compatibility.go:234

User impact: Users encountering this error path see a different wording style than other type-validation errors and a visible misspelling (shoud). This reduces consistency and clarity in user-facing error output.

Suggested Actions

• Update the new error string to follow the established type-error phrasing pattern ("expected ..., found %T").
• Fix the typo (shoud → should) in x-pack/otel/extension/kafkapartitionerextension/unmarshaler.go.
• Optionally align nearby type-validation error strings in this extension for consistent user-facing output.

Note

🔒 Integrity filter blocked 26 items

The following items were blocked because they don't meet the GitHub integrity level.

• #2186 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #48846 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #48310 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #44958 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #42810 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #42032 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #40669 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #23467 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #11280 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #50032 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #50252 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #45827 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #45897 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #20851 search_issues: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #49441 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• #50166 search_pull_requests: has lower integrity than agent requires. The agent cannot read data with integrity below "approved".
• ... and 10 more items

To allow these resources, lower min-integrity in your GitHub frontmatter:

tools:
  github:
    min-integrity: approved  # merged | approved | unapproved | none

---

What is this? | From workflow: UX Design Patrol

Give us feedback! React with 🚀 if perfect, 👍 if helpful, 👎 if not.

• expires on May 1, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

[botelastic]

This issue doesn't have a Team:<team> label.

[github-actions]

This issue is being closed as outdated. A newer issue has been created: #50438

View newer issue

---

This action was performed automatically by the UX Design Patrol workflow.