Add tags to integrations. Match checks and integrations using tags

[job]

Would be nice if the hchk tool can indicate which integrations should be used. By default all integrations are selected when a new check is created, and I have to manually go in and uncheck the integrations which are not needed.

I use the integrations to route information to different entities/organisations: example: http://instituut.net/~job/screenshots/42bb5441933ced72b96e4a73.png - the results of checks with tagcoloclue should go to the coloclue integrations, not to peeringdb.

[cuu508]

I agree the UI gets confusing as soon as you need something other than "all alerts go to all integrations". The "Assign Checks to Channel" dialog is due to an overhaul.

By hchk tool do you mean the command line tool? Checks created by the command line tool should default to no integrations selected.

[job]

Whoops! Because of the webinterface I assumed the hchk CLI tool would behave the same.

Some kind of --integrations $ID1,$ID2or --integration-tags $TAG1 argument would be interesting, so I can group integrations with tags and have the check set up to use those.

[cuu508]

One idea I'm considering is:

• let users tag integrations the same way as checks
• a check and an integration are "associated" if they have at least one common tag
• remove the current, explicit "Add Checks to Channel" facility

It would be a kind of a loose, flexible coupling that would allow for different setups and use cases.

As an example, you could have tags coloclue, peeringdb, coloclue-urgent and peeringdb-urgent.

Continuing the example, use tags coloclue and peeringdb for email integrations. Use coloclue-urgent and peeringdb-urgent for a high-importance, low-volume Slack channel #war-room.

Then assign tags to checks as needed, based on their project and importance. No manual check-integration assignments needed. What do you think?

[job]

Sounds perfect

[cuu508]

"Match checks and integrations using tags" would be tough to implement: 1) not trivial to explain the feature to the users 2) at this point in project's lifecycle, what to do with the existing mappings? Maintain two different ways of mapping checks to integrations?

Meanwhile, Healthchecks now has Projects feature which in many cases simplifies the check-integration mapping, as all checks and all integrations don't need to be in a single big pile any more.

Also, the "My Checks" page shows toggle-able integration icons, which makes it easier to massage the check-integration mapping into the state you want.

With the above in mind, I'm closing this as a "wontfix".