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

feature: Added ability to whitelist ifDescr values from being ignored with good_if #6584

Merged
merged 2 commits into from May 5, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@laf
Member

laf commented May 4, 2017

DO NOT DELETE THIS TEXT

Please note

Please read this information carefully. You can run ./scripts/pre-commit.php to check your code before submitting.

Testers

If you would like to test this pull request then please run: ./scripts/github-apply <pr_id>, i.e ./scripts/github-apply 5926

Fixes: #6581

I'm not 100% sure this is the best approach but it will also solve the issue we've had before where users want to remove an item from bad_if so have to unset the whole array and add the others back in.

@laf laf added the Bug 🐞 label May 4, 2017

@mention-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mention-bot

mention-bot May 4, 2017

Thank you for submitting a PR @laf! We have found the following @murrant, @paulgear and @zarya based on the history of these files to review this PR.

mention-bot commented May 4, 2017

Thank you for submitting a PR @laf! We have found the following @murrant, @paulgear and @zarya based on the history of these files to review this PR.

@LibreNMS-CI

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LibreNMS-CI

LibreNMS-CI commented May 4, 2017

Auto-Deploy finished, Test PR at http://6584.ci.librenms.org or https://6584.ci.librenms.org

@murrant

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@murrant

murrant May 4, 2017

Member

@laf what do you think about removing the global bad_if and moving it into yaml/per OS?

Member

murrant commented May 4, 2017

@laf what do you think about removing the global bad_if and moving it into yaml/per OS?

@laf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laf

laf May 4, 2017

Member

I don't think we will know which devices do / don't have interfaces we will ignore and it's going to duplicate a lot of config in yaml (imho)

Member

laf commented May 4, 2017

I don't think we will know which devices do / don't have interfaces we will ignore and it's going to duplicate a lot of config in yaml (imho)

@murrant

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@murrant

murrant May 5, 2017

Member

Probably, but I feel like we could remove some from the global that only make sense on one OS. However, tracking those down may not be feasible.

... If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of bad_if :D

Member

murrant commented May 5, 2017

Probably, but I feel like we could remove some from the global that only make sense on one OS. However, tracking those down may not be feasible.

... If you can't tell, I'm not a fan of bad_if :D

@laf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laf

laf May 5, 2017

Member

It's the tracking down that would be hard, we could obviously just remove them, add the ones we have in our installs to the correct OS and then see what is reported to us, however.....

  • it's a lot of duplication imho hence why bad_if isn't actually that bad
  • it will generate more 'support' noise which I don't particularly want :)

This approach is blacklist bulk, whitelist specific which seems to be a more logical approach no?

Member

laf commented May 5, 2017

It's the tracking down that would be hard, we could obviously just remove them, add the ones we have in our installs to the correct OS and then see what is reported to us, however.....

  • it's a lot of duplication imho hence why bad_if isn't actually that bad
  • it will generate more 'support' noise which I don't particularly want :)

This approach is blacklist bulk, whitelist specific which seems to be a more logical approach no?

@murrant

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@murrant

murrant May 5, 2017

Member

@laf Ok, sounds good, but can you please add a good_if for this: #3263

Member

murrant commented May 5, 2017

@laf Ok, sounds good, but can you please add a good_if for this: #3263

@laf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laf

laf May 5, 2017

Member

Sure thing. Will do it later on.

Member

laf commented May 5, 2017

Sure thing. Will do it later on.

@laf

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laf

laf May 5, 2017

Member

Done

Member

laf commented May 5, 2017

Done

@LibreNMS-CI

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LibreNMS-CI

LibreNMS-CI commented May 5, 2017

Auto-Deploy finished, Test PR at http://6584.ci.librenms.org or https://6584.ci.librenms.org

@scrutinizer-notifier

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@scrutinizer-notifier

scrutinizer-notifier May 5, 2017

The inspection completed: 2 new issues

scrutinizer-notifier commented May 5, 2017

The inspection completed: 2 new issues

@murrant murrant merged commit 6734e84 into librenms:master May 5, 2017

3 checks passed

Auto-Deploy Build finished.
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
license/cla Contributor License Agreement is signed.
Details

@laf laf deleted the laf:fix/issue-6581 branch May 5, 2017

@lock

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lock

lock bot May 18, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed.

lock bot commented May 18, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 18, 2018

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.