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

Dependent entities #2348

Closed
1 task done
derekoharrow opened this issue Nov 24, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed
1 task done

Dependent entities #2348

derekoharrow opened this issue Nov 24, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
feature-request Request for new features to be added

Comments

@derekoharrow
Copy link

⚠️ Please verify that this feature request has NOT been suggested before.

  • I checked and didn't find similar feature request

🏷️ Feature Request Type

Other

🔖 Feature description

In some situations, you may have a service that is dependent upon another service being available.

For example, you may wish to do an HTTP GET on a URL to check if a website is up. But that HTTP GET request may be dependent on your DNS server working.

So, you may have multiple related monitors - one for DNS and one for HTTP in this example.

It would be great to be able to list/tag the monitors that a monitor is dependent on. In this case, the HTTP monitor is dependent upon the DNS monitor.

There is no point checking the HTTP monitor if the DNS monitor is down, and the HTTP monitor state can be assumed as down if the dependent DNS service is down too (optional).

✔️ Solution

Add a multi-select to each Monitor that allows you to select which other monitors it is dependent upon.

If any of those dependent monitors are down, then there is no point monitoring the parent monitor and it's state can be assumed as down.

❓ Alternatives

No response

📝 Additional Context

No response

@derekoharrow derekoharrow added the feature-request Request for new features to be added label Nov 24, 2022
@mabed-fr
Copy link

mabed-fr commented Dec 7, 2022

Like #2261 ?

@CommanderStorm
Copy link
Collaborator

@derekoharrow
We are consolidating duplicate issues a bit to make issue management easier.
I think, we should track this issue in #1089 as there is no functional difference (maybe just small naming differences, but nothing that would require a different issue imo)
=> I am going to close this as a duplicate

@CommanderStorm CommanderStorm closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Dec 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request Request for new features to be added
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants