WIP: Integrate checks #168
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
christophlehmann
force-pushed
the
feature-add-checks
branch
from
51fee17
to
c3f68a9
Compare
christophlehmann
force-pushed
the
feature-add-checks
branch
from
6f30a5a
to
f4e2ba3
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adds good old caretaker checks
Checks/Resolvers:
[x] Configuration value
[x] Extension version
[x] Extension state
[x] Core version
[x] HTTP Headers (Pass full client response to resolvers)
[x] Backend users which should be inactive
Others:
[x] Better overview for rules? Currently they just extend the extra fields in client table
[x] Handle failed rules (client is missing needed providers and does not return needed data)
[ ] Labels
For review use https://github.com/christophlehmann/t3monitoring_client/tree/add-check-provider as client