RUN-3345: command succeeds, but rundeck outputs SLF4J error

[aristosv]

I have this job, where rundeck runs "init 0" on a remote linux computer to power it off. The remote computer is successfully powered off, but rundeck outputs this:

SLF4J(W): No SLF4J providers were found.
SLF4J(W): Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J(W): See https://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#noProviders for further details.
SLF4J(W): Class path contains SLF4J bindings targeting slf4j-api versions 1.7.x or earlier.
SLF4J(W): Ignoring binding found at [jar:file:/home/rundeck/rundeck.war!/WEB-INF/lib/log4j-slf4j-impl-2.17.2.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J(W): See https://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#ignoredBindings for an explanation.

what could be the issue here?

[TheSander562]

Same here with latest Rundeck 5.9.0 (the included version is 0.1.16)

SLF4J(W): No SLF4J providers were found.
SLF4J(W): Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J(W): See https://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#noProviders for further details.
SLF4J(W): Class path contains SLF4J bindings targeting slf4j-api versions 1.7.x or earlier.
SLF4J(W): Ignoring binding found at [jar:file:/var/lib/rundeck/bootstrap/rundeck-5.9.0-20250205.war!/WEB-INF/lib/log4j-slf4j-impl-2.17.2.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J(W): See https://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#ignoredBindings for an explanation.

[gschwienbacher]

same here with latest Rundeck 5.9.0 - is there a workaround to hide this warning?

[gschwienbacher]

same here with latest Rundeck 5.9.0 - is there a workaround to hide this warning?

@gschueler @ltamaster maybe you have an idea here? Somewhere in google groups this PR and a possible SLF4 update was mentioned: #66

Thanks!

[gschueler]

@gschwienbacher it looks like the dependency needs to be udpated, we will try to include this change soon

[liberodark]

Hi,

Any new about that ?
Because have this issue in 5.13.0

Best Regards

[m3tomlins]

We just upgraded to 5.13.0 today...it's def still happening.

[tcdev0]

same with 5.14.0

[gschwienbacher]

same with 5.17, released yesterday.

[gschwienbacher]

@gschwienbacher it looks like the dependency needs to be udpated, we will try to include this change soon

@gschueler are there any chances that somebody could have a look?