Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 8, 2019. It is now read-only.

Can't save a Facility as a string in Web UI #26

Closed
manul opened this issue Feb 3, 2011 · 9 comments
Closed

Can't save a Facility as a string in Web UI #26

manul opened this issue Feb 3, 2011 · 9 comments

Comments

@manul
Copy link

manul commented Feb 3, 2011

According to the documentation for GELF a facility property could be a number or string (great), but in the web-ui it's not possible to select a facility that has string value in the rule selection box or add a string value for a facility in Settings/Manage facilities

@lennartkoopmann
Copy link
Contributor

There should be no need to overwrite a facility string with another string. You could just send the correct string.

@manul
Copy link
Author

manul commented Feb 3, 2011

Ok, but I can't select it in the Add Rule drop down box, there is only the numeric values

@lennartkoopmann
Copy link
Contributor

Ah. Word. :) I'll add this! Thanks.

@wr0ngway
Copy link

wr0ngway commented Feb 6, 2011

I'm running into this too - its especially noticeable when using ruby gelf library because it defaults its facility to "gelf-rb" which I then can't filter on in the web ui.

@wr0ngway
Copy link

I also tried changing the ruby gelf client to use a facility of "local1" as well as "17", and even though both cases showed up in the web ui, I wasn't able to see either when I did a filter on facility == local1. Could the bug be that only syslog clients cause the facility to get stored?

@wr0ngway
Copy link

Yes, facility ends up in mongoDB as the string "17" instead of the integer 17, so thus the webui query fails to find anything.

@lennartkoopmann
Copy link
Contributor

True. This change from integer to string as GELF facility type was made right before the release. This UI incosistencies show that it was to quick. :) Let's fix this for the next release!

Thanks again!

@wr0ngway
Copy link

Any thoughts on how you'd like to see this fixed if I take a crack at it?

@lennartkoopmann
Copy link
Contributor

The problem is that we'd have to distinct all available facilities from the existing messages. Do you think we could arrange a short chat about this? :)

This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants