Scripted Alert Thresholds

@David Bond I do agree about your overall feedback. Having the ability to reference the output of scripts for complex datapoints would solve this easily. RE: 

As for the HTTP status codes, perhaps you can try adding in the status codes you want to alert for in as complex datapoints. Check out the complex datapoint 503_error for the ‘HTTPS-’ DataSource:

LM API v3 has a separate URL: https://www.logicmonitor.com/swagger-ui-master/api-v3/dist/

It’s actually embedded within the support doc here: https://www.logicmonitor.com/support/v3-swagger-documentation

I know this isn’t the main point, but wanted to point it out.

Exciting news from v187. Not multiple thresholds, but it’s progress.

@Stuart Weenig - yes, they will have done.

All LogicMonitor UI actions are mediated via the API.  You can press F12 in your browser, go to the Network tab in Developer Tools and view the transactions occurring.  Everything goes via santaba/rest

@Michael Raymond - thanks for the URL.  LM should either:

1. put BOTH versions in the same location OR 
2. remove the old one with a redirect to the new one.

I understand that V1/V2 are about to end of life, so it’s a problem that the first link on Google for the search “LogicMonitor swagger” links to the V2 docs.

And you’re right - my main point is that the docs (even this V3 one) are:

• VERY out of date
• completely Swiss Cheese when it comes to API coverage
• NOT maintained

The way LM would tell you to do this is to tune those thresholds at the group level for each datapoint.  But you cannot create instance groups dynamically or do much with them even then (e.g., instance groups are not really groups, are not matchable in alert rules and you cannot tune thresholds for instance groups). Perhaps if they fixed those issues to work as you show, then the “normal” LM way would take care of it. Great idea!

It also would be nice to be allowed to set multiple thresholds for datapoints if needed rather than hacking modules to create shadow datapoints in order to do so (my go-to example for why this is desirable is interface bandwidth -- it is perfectly reasonable to care about values that are too low OR too high). It would also be great to have actual alert templates (not unconditional token substitution for a subset of alerts), but I dream...

Judging by changes I can see going on inside the v3 API, I’m hopeful that Instance Groups are about to become first class citizens in the Resource hierarchy and not just a tag.  Yes, it would be great if you could set SDTs, Alert thresholds etc. at this level.  I’ve been asking for years though, so I won’t hold my breath.

Frankly, the Alerting logic has always been too simplistic.  I would love to be able to use switch statements on HTTP status codes, for example.

The whole “> 1 2 3” thing is woefully inadequate.

As for the HTTP status codes, perhaps you can try adding in the status codes you want to alert for in as complex datapoints. Check out the complex datapoint 503_error for the ‘HTTPS-’ DataSource:

This is exactly what @mnagel was talking about not wanting to have to do:

It also would be nice to be allowed to set multiple thresholds for datapoints if needed rather than hacking modules to create shadow datapoints in order to do so (my go-to example for why this is desirable is interface bandwidth -- it is perfectly reasonable to care about values that are too low OR too high).

Yeah I’m seeing that now. I do get that it can get a bit cumbersome.