Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 7, 2020. It is now read-only.

Silencing should support all possible subscription/check combinations #644

Closed
cwjohnston opened this issue Mar 2, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #657
Closed

Silencing should support all possible subscription/check combinations #644

cwjohnston opened this issue Mar 2, 2017 · 1 comment · Fixed by #657
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@cwjohnston
Copy link
Contributor

Expected Behavior

When adding a silence entry from the silenced view, I should be able to achieve each of the following:

  1. Silence a specific check on clients with a specific subscription (load_balancer:check_haproxy)
  2. Silencing a specific check on all clients (*:check_haproxy)
  3. Silence a specific check on a specific client (client:proxy01:check_haproxy)
  4. Silence all checks on a specific client (client:proxy01:*)
  5. Silence all checks on clients with a specific subscription (load_balancer:*)

Current Behavior

The current UI does not expose a field for the check name. As a result, criteria 1 through 3 in expected behavior cannot be satisfied.

Possible Solution

I apologize for my crimes but here's a mockup:

silence add ui mockup

I also added a "creator" field, which is another feature of native silencing I would love to see exposed here.

Context

Native silencing is pretty flexible, but Uchiwa needs a little help to take full advantage.

Your Environment

  • Uchiwa version used: 0.22.1
  • Sensu version used: 0.28.1
  • Operating System and version (e.g. Ubuntu 14.04): Centos 7
@cwjohnston
Copy link
Contributor Author

Similarly, silencing a check from the checks view should allow me to silence the check across all subscriptions, a specific subscription or a specific client. Right now it erroneously displays the check name under the "client" heading:

2017-03-02 at 3 31 pm

@palourde palourde self-assigned this Mar 14, 2017
@palourde palourde modified the milestone: 0.23.0 Mar 14, 2017
@palourde palourde added this to the 0.23.0 milestone Mar 14, 2017
@palourde palourde mentioned this issue Mar 21, 2017
8 tasks
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants