Closed
Description
auth is orthogonal from the target, the data model and from what data to receive. As such, it will be split out into its own section.
For backwards compatibility, inline auth should be supported, but the new pattern encouraged.
Open questions:
- Should we allow auth to live in a secondary file to completely detach global OID etc configuration from user-specific config?
- Should we offer inline-line loading of files or explicitly have a few distinct files? Inline seems better.
- Should we offer a baseline UI to show which files are loaded?
- Should the exporter emit information like files loaded in
_info
or through a gauge?
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Activity
RichiH commentedon Feb 25, 2021
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1McJJIiJfHgoecVrVNXx4ABJmI5M21e-6O9IgMNbVnvw
RichiH commentedon Mar 15, 2021
After more thought:
The new default config we provide should most likely break it out.
I flipped. Let's make it explicit on CLI. Directory support takes away the need for inlinig, IMO. As such, we should offer fewer ways to do the same thing to avoid long-term confusion.
I think we must.
I think we should. Unclear if we should do
_info
, lots of labels_info
, overload a single labelNew open question: Does that mean we're listing the directory name, what is found and activated inside, or both of those?
xkilian commentedon Mar 15, 2021
What you are describing should be handled in logging at exporter startup, and in the web UI. It is not meant for info metrics IMO.
pobk commentedon Jul 25, 2022
My 2 pence:
credentials=
as well asmodule=
would allow for some flexibility in targeting.My employer uses LastPass, and we've integrated that into an ansible workflow. This gives greater protection to our systems estate since if you don't have access to the credentials from the credentials store you cannot access the system to run any of the playbooks. This is something that could easily be implemented in other ways too.
This also works for generating files full of credentials where each node has separate credentials configured.
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
4 remaining items
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
candlerb commentedon Apr 19, 2023
I'm guessing that legacy files will still work?
If not, or we want a clean break, it would be very easy to write a conversion tool which converts snmp.yml into the new form, providing an "auth" named the same as each original "module":
Then a scrape which supplies
module
but notauth
could implicitly look for anauth
with the same name (falling back to "public_v2" if that doesn't exist).Another possibility would be to stick with the existing file format, but allow users to create modules which have only auth, only SNMP, or both:
Then you could do:
However, I think in the long run the top-level separation is cleaner.
config.d
#628Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules
Split config of auth and modules