[Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX alarms fields displayed
Tao.Liu at windriver.com
Tue Oct 16 15:27:12 UTC 2018
I think you should update the scenarios with the some details:
I believe the scenario that you refer is intended to test the system suppresses the alarms that associated with a host when the host is locked. The alarm entity-instance-id field shows whether the alarm is associated with the host and the suppression field shows whether it allows to be suppressed by the system. This is different than the suppression_status field shown in the alarm detail. The suppression_status is driven by the user action ( I.e. via CLi command fm event-suppress).
The test procedure would be:
Prior to lock compute-0, check if there are any alarms that located on compute-0 ( for example entity-instance-id: host=compute-0.filesystem=<mount-dir>)
fm alarm-list --uuid => display the alarm list with uuid field
fm alarm show <uuid> => it should the alarm detail ( include suppression field) for a given alarm
After compute-0 is locked, check the alarm list and ensure those alarms are not shown in the list.
From: Thebeau, Michel
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:58 AM
To: Perez Carranza, Jose; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io; Liu, Tao
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] StarlingX alarms fields displayed
I found text of your question in this web document:
Test #85 is presented as the first in a series intended to test alarm
suppression, and that this first test is intended the verify the alarm
presentation without suppression.
I'm not sure that the test instruction is complete or that the
"suppression" field is the right one to look at for this test case.
I've CC'd Tao for her experience on the subject of alarm, events and
On 2018-10-09 12:11 p.m., Perez Carranza, Jose wrote:
> Hi All
> I have a question about the alarms on StarlingX, in one of the scenarios that I'm executing says: - "Verify that field and suppression set to True not shown (system alarm-list, system alarm-show <uuid>)" but actually the "Supression | Ture " is displayed, is this a correct behavior and I should update the scenario, or a Launchpad should be created to address this?
> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
> Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
More information about the Starlingx-discuss