Skip to content
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

[dev.icinga.com #13973] Mandatory fields should be optional in the template #706

Closed
icinga-migration opened this issue Jan 12, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@icinga-migration
Copy link

This issue has been migrated from Redmine: https://dev.icinga.com/issues/13973

Created by tobiasvdk on 2017-01-12 15:24:23 +00:00

Assignee: (none)
Status: Rejected (closed on 2017-01-13 08:04:52 +00:00)
Target Version: (none)
Last Update: 2017-01-13 08:04:52 +00:00 (in Redmine)


Mandatory fields, for a service, should be optional in the template and only mandatory in the resulting object. Otherwise you can't modify the service template anymore without assign a maybe stupid default.

@icinga-migration
Copy link
Author

Updated by tgelf on 2017-01-12 15:35:54 +00:00

  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assigned to set to tobiasvdk

This should already be the case?! If it isn't it is a bug, but I'm unable to reproduce this. Could you please show me a related example? Screen-shots would be great.

Thanks
Thomas

@icinga-migration
Copy link
Author

Updated by tobiasvdk on 2017-01-12 20:19:29 +00:00

tgelf wrote:

This should already be the case?! If it isn't it is a bug, but I'm unable to reproduce this. Could you please show me a related example? Screen-shots would be great.

Thanks
Thomas
You're right, it's already working as expected. You can reject the ticket. I actually made the mistake that I added the fields which are set in the service in the command (and not in the service template). In my case the array members of "nrpe_arguments". (Yes, we still use NRPE).

@icinga-migration
Copy link
Author

Updated by tgelf on 2017-01-13 08:04:52 +00:00

  • Status changed from Feedback to Rejected
  • Assigned to deleted tobiasvdk

Thanks :-) There is nothing wrong with NRPE. Ok, that's a lie. It's the protocol itself. Security concerns. Length restrictions. Still, I'm the last one to urge one to introduce breaking changes as long as it works for your environment and meets your requirements.

Cheers,
Thomas

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant