[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: notification of (action) restarts aren't sent

From: Martin Pala
Subject: Re: notification of (action) restarts aren't sent
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:00:58 +0200

> On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:48, Jo Rhett <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 2:32 AM, Martin Pala <address@hidden> wrote:
>> You apply the “action” from one section to event types in completely 
>> different context - there is no connection between these two sections.
> I am completely and totally baffled by what you are claiming here. There 
> isn’t two sections involved. Every one of the sentences I quoted fits on the 
> same screen even if you are viewing the page in 640x480 resolution. They are 
> a single section, with one sentence leading directly to the next.
>> The text you referred ( just 
>> says that <action> is one of “alert”, “restart”, “start”, “stop”, “exec” or 
>> “unmonitor” … snip from manual regarding the possible actions:
> Yes, AFTER it says "Monit provides several tests you can use in a 'check' 
> statement to test a service. You can test either for some expected value or 
> range and take actions if the value changed.” So in the context of this 
> section, an action is something taken when a test fails. There is no 
> ambiguity here.
>> Please can you tell me where in this text you see the *event type* 
>> specification or reference? There isn’t any - it just says that “alert 
>> action sends an event” - not that the event type is “action” too (the event 
>> type isn’t mentioned at all).
> I have no idea what you are babbling about. I have re-read all of my messages 
> tonight and the words “event type” are not within them. 
>> You just induced that the event type will be “action” when we used word 
>> “<action>” in the rule syntax, but the event types are more specific and 
>> describe the particular error which triggered it - not the <action> which 
>> was performed. Using your interpretation the event type won’t have any 
>> sense, because everything can be then marked as “action” event.
> No, you added “event type” to this discussion. I haven’t mentioned it 
> tonight. I’m staring at a small block of text which doesn’t contain those 
> words.
> Go to the link above and read the text. It says I can define a check, and I 
> can define an action to be taken when the check fails. The action very 
> clearly says it will send an alarm. I am not receiving any alarm.
> There no ambiguity here, and your constant attempts to claim that this very 
> small page of text is being confused is… bizarre. Baffling. A third grader 
> could read that text. I have no idea where you are wandering off to.
>> The event types used in alerts are described in alert section: 
> Nobody is talking about event types. We are talking about the very clear 
> description of the actions to be taken when a check fails.

*I’m* talking about the event type.

I tried to explain to you that the “action” option in the alert filter which 
you used:

        set alert address@hidden only on { action, connection, content, data, 
exec, fsflags, gid, icmp, invalid, permission, resource, size, timeout, 
timestamp, uid }

is the *event type* which is triggered under different circumstances then you 
though - that’s the whole point. The context of “set alert” event filter is 
“surprisingly” described under ALERT related section (not ACTION section):

You just don’t want to hear the explanation and continue your own 
misinterpretation - i’m stopping the discussion here as its pointless.

I have modified the manual in the development version to clarify the difference.

>> Here you can find the list of events and situations when the given event 
>> type is used. Again: the “action” event type is not the same as the <action> 
>> placeholder in the rule. I’ll modify the “action” event type description in 
>> the manual to clarify that this event type is used to notify that the user 
>> did some manual action.
> Nobody is disputing that. You are a very, very confused person.
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> +1 (415) 999-1798
> Skype: jorhett
> Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet 
> projects.
> --
> To unsubscribe:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]