2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2016 Prometheus Team
|
|
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
|
|
|
|
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
|
|
|
|
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
|
|
|
|
//
|
|
|
|
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
|
|
|
|
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
|
|
|
|
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
|
|
|
|
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
|
|
|
|
// limitations under the License.
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-09 09:04:01 +00:00
|
|
|
package inhibit
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
"testing"
|
|
|
|
"time"
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/go-kit/kit/log"
|
2019-02-05 13:18:21 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/client_golang/prometheus"
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/common/model"
|
|
|
|
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/alertmanager/config"
|
2021-01-22 14:54:11 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/alertmanager/pkg/labels"
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/alertmanager/provider"
|
2018-09-03 12:52:53 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/alertmanager/store"
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
"github.com/prometheus/alertmanager/types"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
var nopLogger = log.NewNopLogger()
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
func TestInhibitRuleHasEqual(t *testing.T) {
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
now := time.Now()
|
|
|
|
cases := []struct {
|
|
|
|
initial map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert
|
|
|
|
equal model.LabelNames
|
|
|
|
input model.LabelSet
|
|
|
|
result bool
|
|
|
|
}{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// No source alerts at all.
|
|
|
|
initial: map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert{},
|
|
|
|
input: model.LabelSet{"a": "b"},
|
|
|
|
result: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// No equal labels, any source alerts satisfies the requirement.
|
|
|
|
initial: map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert{1: &types.Alert{}},
|
|
|
|
input: model.LabelSet{"a": "b"},
|
|
|
|
result: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matching but already resolved.
|
|
|
|
initial: map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
1: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "b", "b": "f"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(-time.Second),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
2: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "b", "b": "c"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(-time.Second),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
equal: model.LabelNames{"a", "b"},
|
|
|
|
input: model.LabelSet{"a": "b", "b": "c"},
|
|
|
|
result: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
// Matching and unresolved.
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
initial: map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
1: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "b", "c": "d"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(-time.Second),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
2: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "b", "c": "f"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
equal: model.LabelNames{"a"},
|
|
|
|
input: model.LabelSet{"a": "b"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
result: true,
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Equal label does not match.
|
|
|
|
initial: map[model.Fingerprint]*types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
1: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "c", "c": "d"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(-time.Second),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
2: &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"a": "c", "c": "f"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(-time.Second),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
equal: model.LabelNames{"a"},
|
|
|
|
input: model.LabelSet{"a": "b"},
|
|
|
|
result: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, c := range cases {
|
|
|
|
r := &InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
Equal: map[model.LabelName]struct{}{},
|
2019-09-18 07:29:34 +00:00
|
|
|
scache: store.NewAlerts(),
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for _, ln := range c.equal {
|
|
|
|
r.Equal[ln] = struct{}{}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-09-03 12:52:53 +00:00
|
|
|
for _, v := range c.initial {
|
|
|
|
r.scache.Set(v)
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
if _, have := r.hasEqual(c.input, false); have != c.result {
|
2016-06-17 13:10:16 +00:00
|
|
|
t.Errorf("Unexpected result %t, expected %t", have, c.result)
|
2016-06-13 13:14:51 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
func TestInhibitRuleMatches(t *testing.T) {
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
rule1 := config.InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
SourceMatch: map[string]string{"s1": "1"},
|
|
|
|
TargetMatch: map[string]string{"t1": "1"},
|
|
|
|
Equal: model.LabelNames{"e"},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
rule2 := config.InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
SourceMatch: map[string]string{"s2": "1"},
|
|
|
|
TargetMatch: map[string]string{"t2": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
Equal: model.LabelNames{"e"},
|
|
|
|
}
|
2021-01-22 14:54:11 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-02-05 13:18:21 +00:00
|
|
|
m := types.NewMarker(prometheus.NewRegistry())
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
ih := NewInhibitor(nil, []*config.InhibitRule{&rule1, &rule2}, m, nopLogger)
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
now := time.Now()
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// Active alert that matches the source filter of rule1.
|
|
|
|
sourceAlert1 := &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"s1": "1", "t1": "2", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Active alert that matches the source filter _and_ the target filter of rule2.
|
|
|
|
sourceAlert2 := &types.Alert{
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"s2": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
2018-09-03 12:52:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2019-09-18 07:29:34 +00:00
|
|
|
ih.rules[0].scache = store.NewAlerts()
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
ih.rules[0].scache.Set(sourceAlert1)
|
2019-09-18 07:29:34 +00:00
|
|
|
ih.rules[1].scache = store.NewAlerts()
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
ih.rules[1].scache.Set(sourceAlert2)
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cases := []struct {
|
|
|
|
target model.LabelSet
|
|
|
|
expected bool
|
|
|
|
}{
|
|
|
|
{
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule2, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1 (plus noise), inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "t3": "1", "e": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1 plus rule2, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// Doesn't match target filter, not inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "0", "e": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
// Matches both source and target filters of rule1,
|
|
|
|
// inhibited because sourceAlert1 matches only the
|
|
|
|
// source filter of rule1.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"s1": "1", "t1": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches both source and target filters of rule2,
|
2019-02-25 16:18:35 +00:00
|
|
|
// not inhibited because sourceAlert2 matches also both the
|
2019-02-26 11:40:53 +00:00
|
|
|
// source and target filter of rule2.
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"s2": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter, equal label doesn't match, not inhibited
|
Modify the self-inhibition prevention semantics
This has been discussed in #666 (issue of hell...).
As concluded there, the cleanest semantics is most likely the
following: "An alert that matches both target and source side cannot
inhibit alerts for which the same is true." The two open questions
were:
1. How difficult is the implementation?
2. Is it needed?
This relatively simple commit proves that the answer to (1) is: Not
very difficult. (This also includes a performance-improving
simplification, which would have been possible without a change of
semantics.)
The answer to (2) is twofold:
For one, the original use case in #666 wasn't solved by our interim
solution. What we solved is the case where the self-inhibition is
triggered by a wide target match, i.e. I have a specific alert that
should inhibit a whole group of target alerts without inhibiting
itself. What we did _not_ solve is the inverted case: Self-inhibition
by a wide source match, i.e. an alert that should only fire if none of
a whole group of source alert fires. I mean, we "fixed" it as in, the
target alert will never be inhibited, but @lmb in #666 wanted the
alert to be inhibited _sometimes_ (just not _always_).
The other part is that I think that the asymmetry in our interim
solution will at some point haunt us. Thus, I really would like to get
this change in before we do a 1.0 release.
In practice, I expect this to be only relevant in very rare cases. But
those cases will be most difficult to reason with, and I claim that
the solution in this commit is matching what humans intuitively
expect.
Signed-off-by: beorn7 <beorn@soundcloud.com>
2019-02-22 18:57:27 +00:00
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "e": "0"},
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, c := range cases {
|
|
|
|
if actual := ih.Mutes(c.target); actual != c.expected {
|
|
|
|
t.Errorf("Expected (*Inhibitor).Mutes(%v) to return %t but got %t", c.target, c.expected, actual)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2021-01-22 14:54:11 +00:00
|
|
|
func TestInhibitRuleMatchers(t *testing.T) {
|
|
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rule1 := config.InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
SourceMatchers: config.Matchers{&labels.Matcher{Type: labels.MatchEqual, Name: "s1", Value: "1"}},
|
|
|
|
TargetMatchers: config.Matchers{&labels.Matcher{Type: labels.MatchNotEqual, Name: "t1", Value: "1"}},
|
|
|
|
Equal: model.LabelNames{"e"},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
rule2 := config.InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
SourceMatchers: config.Matchers{&labels.Matcher{Type: labels.MatchEqual, Name: "s2", Value: "1"}},
|
|
|
|
TargetMatchers: config.Matchers{&labels.Matcher{Type: labels.MatchEqual, Name: "t2", Value: "1"}},
|
|
|
|
Equal: model.LabelNames{"e"},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
m := types.NewMarker(prometheus.NewRegistry())
|
|
|
|
ih := NewInhibitor(nil, []*config.InhibitRule{&rule1, &rule2}, m, nopLogger)
|
|
|
|
now := time.Now()
|
|
|
|
// Active alert that matches the source filter of rule1.
|
|
|
|
sourceAlert1 := &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"s1": "1", "t1": "2", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Active alert that matches the source filter _and_ the target filter of rule2.
|
|
|
|
sourceAlert2 := &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"s2": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ih.rules[0].scache = store.NewAlerts()
|
|
|
|
ih.rules[0].scache.Set(sourceAlert1)
|
|
|
|
ih.rules[1].scache = store.NewAlerts()
|
|
|
|
ih.rules[1].scache.Set(sourceAlert2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cases := []struct {
|
|
|
|
target model.LabelSet
|
|
|
|
expected bool
|
|
|
|
}{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule2, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1 (plus noise), inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "t3": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter of rule1 plus rule2, inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Doesn't match target filter, not inhibited.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "0", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches both source and target filters of rule1,
|
|
|
|
// inhibited because sourceAlert1 matches only the
|
|
|
|
// source filter of rule1.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"s1": "1", "t1": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches both source and target filters of rule2,
|
|
|
|
// not inhibited because sourceAlert2 matches also both the
|
|
|
|
// source and target filter of rule2.
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"s2": "1", "t2": "1", "e": "1"},
|
|
|
|
expected: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// Matches target filter, equal label doesn't match, not inhibited
|
|
|
|
target: model.LabelSet{"t1": "1", "e": "0"},
|
|
|
|
expected: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, c := range cases {
|
|
|
|
if actual := ih.Mutes(c.target); actual != c.expected {
|
|
|
|
t.Errorf("Expected (*Inhibitor).Mutes(%v) to return %t but got %t", c.target, c.expected, actual)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
2017-11-07 10:30:14 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
type fakeAlerts struct {
|
|
|
|
alerts []*types.Alert
|
|
|
|
finished chan struct{}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func newFakeAlerts(alerts []*types.Alert) *fakeAlerts {
|
|
|
|
return &fakeAlerts{
|
|
|
|
alerts: alerts,
|
|
|
|
finished: make(chan struct{}),
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func (f *fakeAlerts) GetPending() provider.AlertIterator { return nil }
|
|
|
|
func (f *fakeAlerts) Get(model.Fingerprint) (*types.Alert, error) { return nil, nil }
|
|
|
|
func (f *fakeAlerts) Put(...*types.Alert) error { return nil }
|
|
|
|
func (f *fakeAlerts) Subscribe() provider.AlertIterator {
|
|
|
|
ch := make(chan *types.Alert)
|
|
|
|
done := make(chan struct{})
|
|
|
|
go func() {
|
|
|
|
for _, a := range f.alerts {
|
|
|
|
ch <- a
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Send another (meaningless) alert to make sure that the inhibitor has
|
|
|
|
// processed everything.
|
|
|
|
ch <- &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: time.Now(),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
close(f.finished)
|
|
|
|
<-done
|
|
|
|
}()
|
|
|
|
return provider.NewAlertIterator(ch, done, nil)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func TestInhibit(t *testing.T) {
|
|
|
|
t.Parallel()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now := time.Now()
|
|
|
|
inhibitRule := func() *config.InhibitRule {
|
|
|
|
return &config.InhibitRule{
|
|
|
|
SourceMatch: map[string]string{"s": "1"},
|
|
|
|
TargetMatch: map[string]string{"t": "1"},
|
|
|
|
Equal: model.LabelNames{"e"},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// alertOne is muted by alertTwo when it is active.
|
|
|
|
alertOne := func() *types.Alert {
|
|
|
|
return &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"t": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: now.Add(time.Hour),
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
alertTwo := func(resolved bool) *types.Alert {
|
|
|
|
var end time.Time
|
|
|
|
if resolved {
|
|
|
|
end = now.Add(-time.Second)
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
end = now.Add(time.Hour)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
return &types.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Alert: model.Alert{
|
|
|
|
Labels: model.LabelSet{"s": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
StartsAt: now.Add(-time.Minute),
|
|
|
|
EndsAt: end,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
type exp struct {
|
|
|
|
lbls model.LabelSet
|
|
|
|
muted bool
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for i, tc := range []struct {
|
|
|
|
alerts []*types.Alert
|
|
|
|
expected []exp
|
|
|
|
}{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// alertOne shouldn't be muted since alertTwo hasn't fired.
|
|
|
|
alerts: []*types.Alert{alertOne()},
|
|
|
|
expected: []exp{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lbls: model.LabelSet{"t": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
muted: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// alertOne should be muted by alertTwo which is active.
|
|
|
|
alerts: []*types.Alert{alertOne(), alertTwo(false)},
|
|
|
|
expected: []exp{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lbls: model.LabelSet{"t": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
muted: true,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lbls: model.LabelSet{"s": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
muted: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
// alertOne shouldn't be muted since alertTwo is resolved.
|
|
|
|
alerts: []*types.Alert{alertOne(), alertTwo(false), alertTwo(true)},
|
|
|
|
expected: []exp{
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lbls: model.LabelSet{"t": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
muted: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
lbls: model.LabelSet{"s": "1", "e": "f"},
|
|
|
|
muted: false,
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
} {
|
|
|
|
ap := newFakeAlerts(tc.alerts)
|
2019-02-05 13:18:21 +00:00
|
|
|
mk := types.NewMarker(prometheus.NewRegistry())
|
2018-04-18 14:26:04 +00:00
|
|
|
inhibitor := NewInhibitor(ap, []*config.InhibitRule{inhibitRule()}, mk, nopLogger)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
go func() {
|
|
|
|
for ap.finished != nil {
|
|
|
|
select {
|
|
|
|
case <-ap.finished:
|
|
|
|
ap.finished = nil
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
inhibitor.Stop()
|
|
|
|
}()
|
|
|
|
inhibitor.Run()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, expected := range tc.expected {
|
|
|
|
if inhibitor.Mutes(expected.lbls) != expected.muted {
|
|
|
|
mute := "unmuted"
|
|
|
|
if expected.muted {
|
|
|
|
mute = "muted"
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
t.Errorf("tc: %d, expected alert with labels %q to be %s", i, expected.lbls, mute)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|