This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 15, 2019. It is now read-only.
[dev.icinga.com #5671] Passive check result processing for host checks is not working #1429
Labels
Milestone
This issue has been migrated from Redmine: https://dev.icinga.com/issues/5671
Created by mhoyer on 2014-02-18 10:51:24 +00:00
Assignee: (none)
Status: Resolved (closed on 2014-03-03 19:36:54 +00:00)
Target Version: 1.11
Last Update: 2014-03-03 19:36:54 +00:00 (in Redmine)
Hello,
I recently updated our testing environment from Icinga 1.10.1 to 1.10.3 and our integration tests came up with an error. Flagging a host as "Down" using passive check results is not working any more.
Issued in icinga classic gui the "submit passive check result for this host" button sets status_code to 1. This leads to a host-down state in icinga 1.10.1 but not in 1.10.3. Looking at the logs it seems as if the passive check result is lost on interpretation.
Icinga 1.10.1
[1392719577] EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_HOST_CHECK_RESULT;devfoo01;1;DOWN|
[1392719582] PASSIVE HOST CHECK: devfoo01;1;DOWN
[1392719582] HOST ALERT: devfoo01;DOWN;HARD;1;DOWN
Icinga 1.10.3
[1392719768] EXTERNAL COMMAND: PROCESS_HOST_CHECK_RESULT;devfoo01;1;DOWN|
[1392719774] PASSIVE HOST CHECK: devfoo01;0;DOWN
This behavior matches documentation at http://docs.icinga.org/latest/de/pluginapi.html in "11.1.3. Return-Code". But without changing anything at the parameter "use_aggressive_host_checking=0", the behavior changed on update.
I also don't unterstand the reason for this differenciated behavior. Why is warning state processed as down or up depending on this parameter?
Nevertheless it might be a good idea for icinga classic gui to use status_code 2 to flag a host as down using the gui tools.
Kind regards
Marco Hoyer
Changesets
2014-02-18 12:03:36 +00:00 by (unknown) edc4645
2014-03-03 19:33:46 +00:00 by (unknown) 91e5d6e
2014-03-03 21:34:07 +00:00 by (unknown) 2e60399
2014-03-27 22:53:44 +00:00 by (unknown) 4ae54be
Relations:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: