mirror of
https://github.com/healthchecks/healthchecks.git
synced 2026-04-25 15:05:49 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #70] Add tags to integrations. Match checks and integrations using tags #45
Labels
No labels
bug
bug
bug
feature
good-first-issue
new integration
pull-request
question
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/healthchecks#45
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @job on GitHub (Jul 13, 2016).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/healthchecks/healthchecks/issues/70
Would be nice if the
hchktool 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 tag
coloclueshould go to the coloclue integrations, not to peeringdb.@cuu508 commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2016):
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
hchktool do you mean the command line tool? Checks created by the command line tool should default to no integrations selected.@job commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2016):
Whoops! Because of the webinterface I assumed the
hchkCLI tool would behave the same.Some kind of
--integrations $ID1,$ID2or--integration-tags $TAG1argument would be interesting, so I can group integrations with tags and have the check set up to use those.@cuu508 commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2016):
One idea I'm considering is:
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-urgentandpeeringdb-urgent.Continuing the example, use tags
coloclueandpeeringdbfor email integrations. Usecoloclue-urgentandpeeringdb-urgentfor 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 commented on GitHub (Jul 13, 2016):
Sounds perfect
@cuu508 commented on GitHub (Jun 6, 2019):
"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".