Re: proposed changes to the alert statement

[Martin Pala]

It looks good at first sight, but i think that the current syntax 
provides few advantages as well, mainly in more complicated cases, for 
example:


--8<--
set alert address@hidden

check process p1 ...
  start program ...
  stop  program ...
  if failed <test1> then alert
  if failed <test2> then alert
  if failed <test3> then alert
  if failed <test3> then restart
  if 3 restarts within 5 cycles then timeout
  alert address@hidden on {timeout}
  alert address@hidden

check process p2 ...
--8<--

where:

- the global alert for address@hidden is set once and inherited by all 
services (p1 and p2)

- the address@hidden alert is send just on timeout of p1 (it could be 
complicated to join the syntax of statements like "timeout" with alert)

- in all cases the alert contact is set once. The proposed syntax can 
lead to redundant definitions such as:

  if failed <test1> then alert address@hidden, address@hidden
  if failed <test2> then alert address@hidden, address@hidden
  if failed <test3> then alert address@hidden, address@hidden

(when there are tens of services per server and many contact persons, 
the configuration will be very verbose in such case)

- there are several implicit alerts which don't need to be defined - for 
example in the case that the process is not running and monit performs 
restart ("nonexistent" event). In the case of current syntax it is clear 
were to send alert, in the case of new syntax it will be needed to add 
another alert rule such as:

  if non existent then alert address@hidden


Martin



Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> I just browsed through the doc and saw these statements;
>
> (1)  if failed .. then alert
> (2)  alert address@hidden
>
> It hit me that it would be more elegant to append the standalone alert 
> statement in (2) directly to alert in (1). That is,
>
>   if failed .. then alert address@hidden
>
> In other words I suggest that we change the alert action statement to this,
>
>  ALERT address@hidden [,address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> What do you think?