Create Incidents on Rule Failure #947
Conversation
|
@jmedway614 is attempting to deploy a commit to the fern Team on Vercel. To accomplish this, @jmedway614 needs to request access to the Team. Afterwards, an owner of the Team is required to accept their membership request. If you're already a member of the respective Vercel Team, make sure that your Personal Vercel Account is connected to your GitHub account. |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-72efbf62-3bdd-4575-819d-79b9e664e15f.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-5c51b10a-44ba-4623-a3eb-449908fb40ae.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
@jmedway614 Couple thoughts:
|
packages/healthchecks/src/cli.ts
Outdated
| @@ -30,11 +31,17 @@ void yargs(hideBin(process.argv)) | |||
| for (const result of results) { | |||
| if (result.success) { | |||
| console.log(`:white_check_mark: Rule ${result.name} passed`); | |||
| break; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it would be great to add a mode to the CLI that determines whether or not to trigger the incident (i.e. for local testing)
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-b73b73ec-a582-43e2-98a1-41317185daa6.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-b7192559-f33c-454d-a53f-9b8ecf0d8e4a.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-05f7a767-b9c3-4859-b24a-d40735e4e380.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-4d15842d-7f74-4589-9331-e7d25c34b194.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-b940ce3f-eda1-41a1-a56b-cfa8d2dcba35.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
ok I added generateIncident, included all failed rules in the ticket, and migrated it to only 1 incident. One note is the way it's currently setup we are using "idempotencyKey" to avoid deduping. In testing it seems to regenerate if the ticket is resolved but we should double check that happens in "standard" mode. I also tried to refactor the test a little to take advantage of asynchronous calls. |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-7d137f57-760e-4b6a-8615-1bd630b18a50.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-b215b451-73ab-43cd-a3e2-113ca4bd3532.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-8b082fb8-410b-4ac8-a866-4385c6fe1f0a.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-2c98bb7c-162c-4cfe-9de9-17b5851bb782.docs.buildwithfern.com |
|
🌿 Preview your docs: https://fern-preview-437b7564-7c15-4949-8b43-d058201073dc.docs.buildwithfern.com |
Fixes FER-
Short description of the changes made
This creates an incident based on a rule failure. An example of the report can be seen here:
I wasn't able to specifically assign to someone "on call". I could only see a specific ID I had to add. I also only tested it in "test" mode.
let me know if you like the messages and title of the incident. Happy to change if desired.
What was the motivation & context behind this PR?
How has this PR been tested?