Yeah, I fucked up pretty bad when I implemented the sensor subtypes. They appeared in the GUI correctly but were ignored by the back end alert generation code.
We later decided that it was too messy to do it that way, and we're probably going to do it as proper sub-types, which will basically be hardcoded attribute matches.
I kept meaning to write some code to migrate existing checkers from the subtypes to normal with an additional attribute match, but I never got around to it, so Tom just removed them.
adam.
On 2014-09-24 23:34, Tom Laermans wrote:
On 25/09/2014 00:32, Milton Ngan wrote: So what is the direction that the sensors are heading? Are subtypes going to go away? Or are they the way forward? I saw that alerting for subtypes was just removed, and that the recommendation is to use the general sensor class for alerting. Alerting for subtypes can be made to work with a simple change, however it would also break the generic sensor type. I am just trying to understand if I should just ignore the sensor subtypes altogether because a generic sensor alerting infrastructure is where things are headed.
Sensor subtypes were added to the checker creation dialog a while back, but there never was any supporting code for them to actually work. This is why I removed them today, they were creating a lot of confusion but were not functional.
Subtypes will return at some point in the future (not only for sensors), but the sensor class will definitely remain. Creating one huge dropdown is in my opinion certainly not the way to go, either.
Tom _______________________________________________ observium mailing list observium@observium.org http://postman.memetic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/observium