Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 30, 2024. It is now read-only.

Add icinga checks for email-alert-api content changes #10025

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 9, 2020

Conversation

edwardkerry
Copy link
Contributor

@edwardkerry edwardkerry commented Jan 8, 2020

Two new Icinga checks, warning and critical, for more refined reporting on unprocessed content changes in email-alert-api. Alerts will trigger if either value exceeds 0.

This is part of work to slim down the email-alert-api-healthcheck-not-ok alert, making individual alerts which are not machine-specific. Data lives in stats/gauges/govuk/email-alert-api in Graphite.

Trello

host_name => $::fqdn,
target => 'transformNull(stats.gauges.govuk.email-alert-api.content_changes.warning_total)',
warning => '0',
critical => '100000000',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this value so large because this is always a warning alert and the critical should never trigger from here? Is there a better way?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is correct, there are existing comments in the file to this effect

  # We are only interested in the `warning` state but `critical` is also required
  # for valid Icinga check configuration. Setting it to a high value that won't be
  # reached allows us to get round this issue

I don't think we are currently aware of a better way, but are very open to ideas!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have no ideas. It was an observation!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@cbaines suggested we could make the critical and warning arguments optional in the Icinga check template configuration(I think!?) which means we wouldn't need to do this. Having seen the other two healthchecks we need to set up in a similar way maybe it's worth doing this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that's still a possibility, but not quite worth doing yet. I think it would be good to see the first iteration of the extracted healthchecks in action for a bit, and have some data to work with, and then we'll be able to make more informed decisions.

@edwardkerry edwardkerry merged commit f3c80f4 into master Jan 9, 2020
@edwardkerry edwardkerry deleted the add-content-changes-icinga-check branch January 9, 2020 10:16
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 this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants