[ZBXNEXT-4200] Ability to create LLD item prototype of type "dependent" with a master item NOT only item prototype Created: 2017 Oct 26 Updated: 2018 Oct 08 Resolved: 2018 Aug 20 |
|
Status: | Closed |
Project: | ZABBIX FEATURE REQUESTS |
Component/s: | Frontend (F), Server (S) |
Affects Version/s: | 3.4.3 |
Fix Version/s: | 4.0.0alpha9, 4.0 (plan) |
Type: | Change Request | Priority: | Major |
Reporter: | Oleksii Zagorskyi | Assignee: | Michael Veksler |
Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 37 |
Labels: | dependentitems, prototype | ||
Σ Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified |
Σ Time Spent: | Not Specified | Time Spent: | Not Specified |
Σ Original Estimate: | Not Specified | Original Estimate: | Not Specified |
Attachments: | discovery.txt explain.png zbx_export_hosts.xml | ||||||||||||||||
Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
Sub-Tasks: |
|
||||||||||||||||
Team: | Team A | ||||||||||||||||
Sprint: | Sprint 32, Sprint 33, Sprint 34, Sprint 35, Sprint 36, Sprint 37, Sprint 39, Sprint 40, Sprint 41 | ||||||||||||||||
Story Points: | 2.5 |
Description |
The new dependent item functionality is awesome, but I would like an extension to make full use of it. Example of case scenario I have in mind: Host level: LLD level: c) Dependent item prototype, with master item set to the host level query (a) but with post-processing searching for a specific node (b) that extracts the value for the specific node. in this way it would be possible to limit the number of queries to the database and also get the same value for all the nodes at the same time. |
Comments |
Comment by Leonardo Savoini [ 2017 Dec 04 ] |
I have the same scenario as you put in the example. In my case, I only want data file size and log file size. As are only numbers I was able to made it work using calculated item, and in the formula I just put macro {#DATAFILESIZE}. So I it will be a really good if we can use dependent item from discovery rule, or following |
Comment by Martin Emrich [ 2017 Dec 08 ] |
Similar use case, same problem: A master item on template level returns a json array via a costly operation. I would like to extract values from each item in a discovery rule, but cannot access the date from item prototype level. So now I will have to retrieve the array for each discovered object (or cache it somehow on the agent host) |
Comment by David Mitchell [ 2017 Dec 08 ] |
Me to - need this and the ability to use LLD macro values in preprocessing. Posted on forum but suspected it wasn't possible. <Clarification> This has a use case of potentially hundreds of individual end devices (with varying monitoring value names) so manual creation is not feasible.. |
Comment by Thiago Leão Melo [ 2018 Jan 04 ] |
I need it, I make a test where I changed it directly on database and it worked fine for me So I think it is more easy than I thought |
Comment by Glebs Ivanovskis (Inactive) [ 2018 Jan 23 ] |
To make use of this feature most likely |
Comment by Eremin Alexander [ 2018 Mar 28 ] |
For me, too, very relevant. I tried to make tablespaces discovery to optimize the number of requests to database, but I failed because master item must be in the same discovery rule as the dependent items. If you try to add a master item to item prototype, you get a lot of master items. |
Comment by Dimitri Bellini [ 2018 Mar 30 ] |
Same for me, please vote this feature! |
Comment by richlv [ 2018 Mar 30 ] |
please see the "me too" note at https://zabbix.org/wiki/Docs/bug_reporting_guidelines#Reporting_an_issue - using the voting function is suggested to reduce noise |
Comment by Michael Veksler [ 2018 Jul 02 ] |
Available in pre-4.0.0alpha9 (trunk) r82435 |
Comment by Alexander Vladishev [ 2018 Jul 04 ] |
(24) [D] Documentation needs to be updated martins-v Updated documentation:
Please review. vjaceslavs Looks good! CLOSED |
Comment by Ivo Kurzemnieks [ 2018 Jul 13 ] |
Fixed ChangeLog entry in pre-4.0.0alpha9 (trunk) r82713 |
Comment by Seth Simmons [ 2018 Sep 26 ] |
Is there a way to backport/patch this into 3.4.x? I desperately need this capability, but want to remain on 3.4 in my production environment. |
Comment by Khatsayuk Alexander [ 2018 Sep 26 ] |
@setsimmo, it's rather weird decision, because 3.4 isn't LTS and will drop support after 4.0 release. |
Comment by Seth Simmons [ 2018 Sep 26 ] |
Oh, my understanding was that 3.4 would be the next LTS release (had read that somewhere). In that case, I'll plan on pushing to 4.0 when its released and stable. |
Comment by richlv [ 2018 Sep 26 ] |