Respect scrutiny device status threshold setting

[Tarow]

This PR addresses the issue mentioned here.

The scrutiny widget now respects the device status threshold setting when calculating the number of failed and passed devices.

[shamoon]

Thanks for the PR! This wasnt working as-submitted though, it was missing the "passing" condition where the status was > threshold, e.g. in my case 2 drives failing scrutiny but passing SMART, so status returns 2 and threshold is 1 yet it was still showing passed: 0.

I also simplified the code, I dont think we need the Map.

Let me know if youre good with these changes! Feel free, of course.

[Tarow]

Good catch, thanks for the changes!

You are right when it comes to the map. It's not really necessary but i thought semantically it makes more sense to map the DeviceStatusThreshold back to a DeviceStatus, as now what we are doing is [DeviceStatusThreshold,DeviceStatus].includes(DeviceStatus), which works ofc, as the numbers match in this case.

Right now, the failed condition can collide with the unknown condition as device status 4 (assuming that could happen) and threshold both would be counted both as failed and unknown.

I made some minor adjustments, let me know what you think.

[shamoon]

Yes we are definitely down into the semantic weeds. Anyway, I dont see these things changing any time soon. Thanks.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new discussion for related concerns.