Websocket API check support

[chit786]

💡 For general support requests and bug reports, please go to checklyhq.com/support

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. A clear and concise description of what the problem is. Ex. We have good amount of requests originating towards our websocket API's and for that we require support via checkly.

Describe the solution you'd like A clear and concise description of what you want to happen. We wish to have websocket check support via checkly as soon as possible.

Describe alternatives you've considered A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

• currently we tend to use local solution but we will look other options if required, since this is a very important usecase for our engineering teams.

Additional context Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

Here is the curl request i am trying to import in checkly but it does nothing:

curl --include \
--no-buffer \
--header "Connection: Upgrade" \
--header "Upgrade: websocket" \
--header "Host: echo.websocket.org" \
--header "Origin: http://echo.websocket.org" \
--header "Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13" \
http://echo.websocket.org

I would assume since websocket is a layer above http, it should be possible to have a HTTP client capable to support this within checkly.

[chit786]

Reference from Datadog: https://docs.datadoghq.com/synthetics/api_tests/websocket_tests/?tab=requestoptions

[tnolet]

Hey @chit786 thanks for contributing! We will ship new check types ASAP so this one goes on the list.

[chit786]

Hey @chit786 thanks for contributing! We will ship new check types ASAP so this one goes on the list.

thanks @tnolet is there any ETA for next product milestone where this will be available as GA?

[tnolet]

@chit786 now ETA on this that I would be comfortable giving you. But new check types (and even custom codable check types) is one of our main goals for 2023.

[bumi]

+1 that would be helpful to fully check our infrastructure.

[tnolet]

@bumi could you give me an example of what it is you would be monitoring on your current service / webapp? Do you use any other solution right now to make sure your websockets are working?

[bumi]

We are currently not using any other solution and I don't have much websocket monitoring experience so far. I was thinking about some tool that connects to the websocket, sends a message and listens for a message then disconnects again. - just to make sure connecting and receiving messages works.

maybe this is even already possible with a browser check?

[g-marshall-img-arena]

We would also find this very valuable.

[tnolet]

@g-marshall-img-arena Great! Could you give me an example from your current service / app? We will have this check, just want to make sure we are tackling real life use cases.

[g-marshall-img-arena]

Thanks.

Sure. So for example we have several websockets that we need to perform one or a combination of the following checks upon (in order of priority to us):

• connection is established
• packet is received upon successful connection\
• ws connection to wss fails
• certain messages are received in response to sent messages
• websockets are closed upon certain behaviours

[tnolet]

@g-marshall-img-arena perfect, thank you. This helps a lot.

[tnolet]

@g-marshall-img-arena @bumi another follow up question here: How are you authenticating your websocket connections?

• A signed cookie perhaps, created by some other backend API?
• username / pwd?
• some other method?

[g-marshall-img-arena]

Hey. So these particular ws are not protected by auth as they're public facing and must be available before auth takes place in order to populate and update values on screen. However, they have a number of server side security measures in place, such as rate limiting, subscription limits, connections per ip, packet sizes etc.

[bumi]

Actually authentication would not be important for us at this point.

[tnolet]

thanks @bumi @g-marshall-img-arena

[tnolet]

@chit786 @g-marshall-img-arena @bumi FYI: we are diving into supporting new Check types the coming quarters.

@drakirnosslin heads up

[bumi]

@tnolet yeah, that's awesome. thanks for the info. I am happy to beta test :)