Open febbraiod opened 3 weeks ago
Seems like we could very easily allow them to be named in the db with some convention of the form positionsCheck_1
, where we just peel off the _1
to get the status monitor we are looking to evaluate. We could either plug _1
into the checks params, or perhaps better yet, just drop it on the floor.
Also -- Don has seen exactly this use case supported in a similar monitoring system at a client -- hence the desire to have it in Hoist as well.
It seems that the developer could write some shared code within their app's
MonitorDefinitionService
and then expose several variants of a status check using the existing API.I admit it would be kinda hacky, but they could even name them generically - eg
positionsCheck1
,positionsCheck2
, ... and then have them all be exactly the same and pass their params to the shared code.Obviously not as elegant as true support for spec'ing the exact same monitor multiple times, but I wonder if that could bridge the gap for your use case, given that I don't believe we've had this request before. I'm assuming it would be a relatively invasive change to pull some new composite key through the stack of monitor specs, running, and result reporting.