Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
x-pack/metricbeat/module/meraki: Add new module #40669
x-pack/metricbeat/module/meraki: Add new module #40669
Changes from 15 commits
d6e356a
c048f77
2986d09
9fe235e
53ae668
c122fc8
729094b
0c5b27f
0ffeed9
a9f809b
9223215
d2e5848
d438a84
07819cd
998936f
c1f3dd1
bd41dd0
d99353f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Check failure on line 47 in x-pack/metricbeat/module/meraki/device_health/device_appliance_uplink_status_and_ha.go
GitHub Actions / lint (windows)
Check failure on line 48 in x-pack/metricbeat/module/meraki/device_health/device_appliance_uplink_status_and_ha.go
GitHub Actions / lint (windows)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do these need to be named differently from other uplink fields, or are the MG uplinks a distinct concept?
AFAICT the MG uplink metadata is just a superset of the other uplink fields (except 'ip_assigned_by')
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair point, I agree the fields looks the same. However, I have already seen where meraki has two unique api calls and same ip address and it is not the same. Also in this case it does appear to be a very unique meraki API call, to completely different code trees (client.Appliance.GetOrganizationApplianceUplinkStatuses() and client.CellularGateway.GetOrganizationCellularGatewayUplinkStatuses()) ... Unless I see the data side by side and returning the exact same data, I am not sure I feel comfortable, assuming the APIs are returning the same values. And even then given two completely different calls, I am not sure I trust their API. If I return what Meraki returns and do not try to merge / combine it, then if there is an issue it is Meraki issue and not MB issue. For the naming pattern ... I was trying to do Object, "cellulargateway" in naming for future debug.