also hide inhibited alerts #1039
Conversation
|
Internally this is often referred to as "muted". |
|
@beorn7 @stuartnelson3 what do you guys think about renaming this form param to |
|
We could do that. Or we create a new parameter |
|
Yes I think it would be good to be able to view inhibited, silenced, and firing alerts in all combinations. |
|
+1 to beorn's suggestion. Keep it flexibile in the API even if we don't make it an option from the UI. |
|
@stuartnelson3 @beorn7 @brancz done! |
|
@stuartnelson3 I'd better leave the code level review to you. (One day, I'll get familiar with Alertmanager internals, but not today…) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally looks good so far, but I would expect that I can toggle the front end to show me the inhibited alerts. As far as I can tell from this PR, this only handles the API filtering part. (if that is meant to be done in a subsequent PR, I'm fine with that as well)
| @@ -343,6 +359,10 @@ func (api *API) listAlerts(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) { | |||
| continue | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if !showInhibited && len(status.InhibitedBy) != 0 { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
still hoping that we'll one day have a real index around this 🙂
Yeah, as far as I understood the original issue was about the backend only. I can change the frontend as well if required... |
|
@w0rm will take care of the frontend part (IIRC). |
|
In that case, this lgtm |
…metheus#1039) * If NRestarts or NRefused are not available, don't ignore the unit itself * Don't report systemd metrics (NRestarts/NRefused) that are not available Signed-off-by: James Hartig <james@getadmiral.com>
refs #1034
I feel like it would be better to rename the form parameter to something else, since it's not only silenced alerts anymore... what do you folks think?