I created a printer supply rule to alert me when toner is low. I didn’t see a specific option for toner supply so I’m also getting alerts when the tray is low on paper, but that’s fine.
I created this rule last week and when I went back to the alert rules that I have assigned to the printers, I see what appears to be a new option called ‘Operation’ which would be fine if it wasn’t pre-filled with a ‘random’ device alert in the dropdown box. For example, my printer supply rule has an option in the Operation box which is a rule for a network switch. I certainly did not add that in the dropdown box for Operation and I’m the only LibreNMS admin.
I also see a 90 day Availability widget/graph/etc under Overall Traffic when clicked in a device, which is nice, but also seems new so it appears something recently updated to reflect these two things.
I’m more concerned with the Operation dropdown as I’m not fully understanding why a printer supply rule has a networking device alert rule in the Operation dropdown.
LibreNMS is fully up to date as far as I can tell.
The name of the operation is taken from the first alert rule that previous settings were migrated from. If another rule had the same settings it just re-uses the first operation to save duplication.
docs available on operations so go have a read of them.
Dang, I’m not happy about that, I have a lot of alerts that were created from an existing alert. Now I need to go to all those alerts and change the drop down operation to remove the existing operation. This seems like a step backwards. Thanks for the information.
I don’t have an issue with the name, the ‘operation’ it is linked to is an alert for another device.
Point being, Device A has an alert for a ‘supply level’ when I was looking at that alert, I noticed it has an ‘operation’ for a network switch ‘port down’ in an entirely different office/location/network.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would I want an ‘operation’ of a port down alert to be tied to a ‘supply level’ alert?
You must not have read what I wrote. Why is an alert for device A tied to an alert for device B?
You know librenms better than me, I am not trying to argue with you. I simply don’t understand the connection with operations between two different devices.
”The name of the operation is taken from the first alert rule that previous settings were migrated from. If another rule had the same settings it just re-uses the first operation to save duplication.”
It’s just a name, go and change it to ‘My default operation’ Or “I like operations”. Whatever you want.
But like I said earlier, why is an operation for device A tied to device B?
It seem that you don’t understand me or I don’t understand why operations are ‘linked’ with other devices. Either way, you keep telling me to rename. I don’t want to rename, that’s not my issue.
I can see that you aren’t going to give a helpful reply, thanks for the replies that you have given, up to this point.
I don’t think I’m ignoring what you said. You told me to change it to default and rename it. I’ve already stated the name isn’t the issue, but you suggested that two times as ‘ignoring what you’ve said’ it is ok though, I can see we aren’t going anywhere, here.
Anyway, I changed it to ‘None (suppress notifications)’ but the fact that I never set an operation to begin with and a LibreNMS update included an operation to an alert for another device was the real head scratcher.
Anyway, it’s done, nothing else more is needed. Thanks.
”The name of the operation is taken from the first alert rule that previous settings were migrated from. If another rule had the same settings it just re-uses the first operation to save duplication.”
Right, and that is a bad design, imo, because when I initially created the rule the operation box did not exist. Now that operation is added, I now have a bunch of alerts I need to adjust to take back to ‘default’ because there was no operation dropdown on the initial alert I created.
Why would an operation field THAT DID NOT EXIST when I created the alert, years ago, stop my alerts, today, from working if I set that operation to default?
Better yet, don’t bother replying, you will just tell me to rename it.
@laf When you first told me to rename, I didn’t realize the naming was done under a different section, I thought I would be renaming it on the same page where the dropdown was. This is what confused me. That’s what prompted me to create that feature request post. I have just renamed them all because the default names that were used for the operation made absolutely zero sense in my environment which is what initially caused me to create this post.
Thanks for the replies here and in the other post, now things make more sense, but did require some renaming on my end (of the operations).
