It should be possible to groovyscript Alert Thresholds, based on (for example) ILPs and hostProperties.I need to modify the SNMP_Network_Interfaces to vary the InDiscardPercent threshold depending on whether this is a radioMAC interface type and whether it is a given customer.Something along the lines of:def isRadio = instanceProps.get('auto.interface.type') == 'radioMAC';def customerCode = hostProps.get('customer.code');if(isRadio && customerCode == 'ACME'){ // No threshold return '';}// The defaultreturn '> 10';

@Stuart Weenig I’ll check to see what I can find out! Also, in the near future we are planning to implement an idea board that would show the status of feature requests ;)

@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: https://community.logicmonitor.com/feature-requests-5/complex-groovy-datapoint-access-to-script-batchscript-output-3509?postid=11716#post11716As 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:

Not a hope. The current Swagger is at version 2 still(!) https://www.logicmonitor.com/swagger-ui-master/dist/ 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-documentationI know this isn’t the main point, but wanted to point it out.

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! 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:put BOTH versions in the same location OR 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

Scripted Alert Thresholds | LogicMonitor

26 Replies

Stuart_Weenig
Legend
12 months ago
Also, if it’s possible, it would be nice to have the pre-request script built into the swagger.json file that can be imported into postman. That way, all you have to do is setup your environment and you’re ready to go. Currently, the environment is setup with the wrong auth type and the variable names differ from the setup instructions that have been used for a long time to setup postman.
https://community.logicmonitor.com/product-discussions-22/accessing-the-logicmonitor-rest-api-with-postman-and-lmv1-api-token-authentication-1703
Now that LM is actually putting a little effort into the community, making this bit easier to onboard will go a long way towards building more trust between LM and the community.
mray
LM Conqueror
12 months ago
This is all great feedback! I’ll address this in a feedback request internally.
@David Bond -- Like Stuart mentioned, you can import the swagger.json file into Postman, but the auth isn’t in line with LM’s auth.
I’m not sure about how much of this stuff is possible on the Postman/Swagger side, but I’ll note it all.
mnagel
Professor
12 months ago

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!

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

That is very good news! I am shocked to see that under “Fixed Issues” as I am so often told things like this are feature requests (along with many issues I consider bug fixes). Regardless, will be nice to see this finally happen. Wonder when instance groups will be selectable in Alert Rules….
David_Bond
Expert
12 months ago
Somewhere, I have a spreadsheet of Feature Requests that went into the black hole that is the “Feedback” button.
I look forward to the data entry exercise of posting them into a public “Ideas Board” 😁
Stuart_Weenig
Legend
12 months ago
Me too. Up to 57 official requests.
A11ey
Community Manager
12 months ago
Well, 🤞🤞🤞, hoping we can import from PB, assuming they are already submitted. I honestly have no idea the level of effort. Assuming you have submitted these before?