[dev.icinga.com #12909] display problem with arguments of "load" checkcommand

[icinga-migration]

This issue has been migrated from Redmine: https://dev.icinga.com/issues/12909

Created by twidhalm on 2016-10-13 08:38:54 +00:00

Assignee: (none)
Status: Closed (closed on 2016-12-13 10:30:09 +00:00)
Target Version: (none)
Last Update: 2016-12-13 10:30:09 +00:00 (in Redmine)

---

Hi,

The fields with arguments for the load command are displayed incorrectly in director. While the ITL checkcommand load seems to be correct, the load_cload15 argument is displayed as load_cload1 . This might not be a matter of small displays because load_wload15 is displayed correctly. Since this was reported at a customers, I only had several Win7 clients with Firefox to verify the issue.

See attached screenshot.

Attachments

• command_screenshot_cropped.png twidhalm - 2016-10-13 08:38:46 +00:00

[icinga-migration]

Updated by tgelf on 2016-10-13 08:54:43 +00:00

• Tracker changed from Bug to Support
• Status changed from New to Feedback
• Assigned to set to twidhalm

Should be a layer 8 issue ;-) Out of the box, Director creates no fields in an automated way. All of them should have been created by a human being in your environment. The "fields" tab on a specific (command) object is basically a shortcut that allows one to create simple string types with a custom caption and description. It suggests the variable name as a caption but you are free to modify it. And you usually should, as "Critical Threshold" looks much better than cload_crit.

If you want to change fields later on this must take place elsewhere, you have to go to the data fields page (through the Director dashboard). That's where you can fine-tune data types and more. Has been created this way to make it more obvious to you that changing this variable might affect more than a single command in case multiple ones are using cload_crit.

With the ongoing work for #12904 and #12906 this will get more comfortable and obvious, in the meantime I prefer to keep it this way. Imagine someone changing the data type for a datafield for $warn$ on a single command from string to array while using the very the very same datafield for many other commands. Could be a disaster, that's mainly why I tried to keep the inhibition threshold high :p

Cheers,
Thomas

[icinga-migration]

Updated by tgelf on 2016-12-13 10:30:09 +00:00

• Status changed from Feedback to Closed
• Assigned to deleted twidhalm

No feedback, guess I was right. Otherwise please let me know ;-)