Skip to content
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

[Agent 6] Put check config in <check>.d directory #39

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 12, 2019

Conversation

KSerrania
Copy link
Contributor

What does this PR do?

If Agent 6 is installed, puts the check config files in their respective <check>.d folder.

Motivation

Check config files were put in the conf.d folder directly, which is the standard for Agent 5, but not Agent 6.

@KSerrania KSerrania force-pushed the kserrania/agent6-config-folder branch from e4221f3 to 030fe9d Compare October 21, 2019 09:36
@KSerrania KSerrania merged commit 2559615 into 3.x Nov 12, 2019
@KSerrania KSerrania deleted the kserrania/agent6-config-folder branch November 12, 2019 09:34
@KSerrania KSerrania mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2019
@hegyre
Copy link

hegyre commented Jan 2, 2020

Hello @KSerrania ,
Since 3.0 contains breaking changes and is installing agent v7 by default.
And since this PR concerns Agent v6+, is it possible to create a release 2.1.1 including this fix only ?

Also, if checks are already present in {{ datadog_install_settings.confd_path }}/ instead of {{ datadog_install_settings.confd_path }}/{{ check_name }}.d/ (because we are using version 2.0 of this formula), when we will migrate to v3.0 or v2.1.1, the checks on old locations will be moved / removed, or they will be duplicated ?

@KSerrania
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @hegyre,

As you guessed, for now when going from 2.1 to 3.0, the checks will be duplicated. This is a bug, as the Agent will pick up both config files, resulting in multiple instances of the check to be run. I'll do a follow-up PR for this and a bugfix release for 3.x.

I'll then create a 2.2 release with both this PR + the fix for the aforementioned issue.

@hegyre
Copy link

hegyre commented Jul 9, 2020

Hello @KSerrania,
Any news on a possible 2.2 version ?

Thanks in advance.

@KSerrania
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @hegyre,

Thanks for reminding me of that! I'll draft a 2.2 release with this and #47 tomorrow.

@hegyre
Copy link

hegyre commented Jul 10, 2020

Hey @KSerrania ,
Thanks for the info, that sounds great!

@KSerrania
Copy link
Contributor Author

Here's the release PR: #55. I'll do some sanity checks on the 2.x branch next week (it's been a while since I last touched 2.x code, so I want to make sure the backports work). I'm targeting a release date sometime between mid and end of next week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants