-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 261
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fixed #429 - Add Recipe for disk integration #430
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @iancward! This recipe was indeed missing from the cookbook.
Just added a comment on a minor thing.
spec/integrations/disk_spec.rb
Outdated
excluded_disk_re: '/dev/sde.*', | ||
tag_by_filesystem: 'no', | ||
excluded_mountpoint_re: '/mnt/somebody-elses-problem.*', | ||
all_partitions: 'no' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even though the disk check appears to correctly handle strings for boolean parameters, it's recommended to set them as actual booleans. Could you use booleans for use_mount
, tag_by_filesystem
and all_partitions
? (and update the example you provided in the recipe accordingly).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @olivielpeau: I actually took the examples directly from http://docs.datadoghq.com/integrations/disk/, but I've made the requested changes in bdec562.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Actually the examples in the docs are correct, in yaml yes
and no
are booleans (but 'yes'
and 'no'
are strings).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, right. I think I had quoted those because the 'yes' and 'no' string attributes were getting converted to true/false booleans in the file and the spec was failing. Using true/false directly definitely removes confusion here.
@iancward One last thing: could you fix the small rubocop failure? https://travis-ci.org/DataDog/chef-datadog/builds/228122567#L266 |
Oopsie. Fixed in f3b925d . |
Thanks @iancward! PR looks good, merging. The issue you had with |
No description provided.