uptime-kuma
uptime-kuma copied to clipboard
louislam
Add filtering monitor list and status history by its status (UP|DOWN)
Description
Add filtering monitor list and status history by its status (UP|DOWN)
Fixes #1585
Type of change
- User interface (UI)
- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
Checklist
- [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
- [x] I ran ESLint and other linters for modified files
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code and tested it
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas (including JSDoc for methods)
- [x] My changes generate no new warnings
Screenshots
@louislam Any update on getting this merged? This is a pretty commonly requested feature.
@louislam - are you saying you'll merge it after you're able to tweak the UI, or you're asking @zolotarev to clean up his UI implementation?
I would really like to have the option to group by status also ! It would be easyer to see what I need to fix :)
Thanks !
It would be really great if can merge this with such a useful function
@sym0nd0 @I-Fun @R0GGER @AMSFauzi7869 @m3ki @ianaway
Please refrain from posting +1 / requests for update-things on PRs, as this makes reviewing it even harder.
PRs are for noting problems and working on them, while for updates, there is a subscribe to this PR button at the top.
We use šš» on PRs to prioritise work.
@jeremyrnelson
Like this, this is not getting merged, as the current border looks very out of place.
If somebody (either @zolotarev or somebody subscribed to this issue) provided a CSS-Patch to make this look like the other parts of the UI, I could very much imagine this getting merged into the next Release (1.23).
Assumption: This gets rebased onto master and works with the new monor-groups introduced in 1.22.
I absolutely don't understand why we are talking aesthetics over functionality... I bet a lot of people would want this now and fix border, margins, css later... It's getting really hard to manage.
I absolutely don't understand why we are talking aesthetics over functionality
Our Contribution guidelines clearly state, that UI/UX is not close to Uptime Kuma is a Won't Merge-Criterium.
The rationale behind this, to encourage the developers who provide pull requests to adhere to the established design.
This PR violates this part of the guide ā will not be merged unless this is addressed.
I completely see your frustrations, but fixing something in master is not feasible in a BDFL style project.
I supported the project for a while until I realized that @louislam was completely overwhelmed and was far more concerned with adding all sorts of extra whiz-bang widgets than fixing some core functionality that larger users desperately need, and the UI completely falls apart with large numbers of alerts. That's certainly his right, but we gave up and ended up going back to Uptime Robot because it just works, where UptimeKuma just doesn't. It definitely looks pretty, but functionally it just doesn't scale.
Yes, but the problem is Iām not a developer. Iād love to pay somebody to fork it and just add a couple of features to make it usable for a large number of monitors. If anyone is interested, DM me :)
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 18:28 Pierre @.***> wrote:
@jeremyrnelson https://github.com/jeremyrnelson consider forking?
ā Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/pull/1971#issuecomment-1601761076, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJRW5E4KP7AWKUPZ2E5F4DXMNYSVANCNFSM55SL672Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Jeremy
@jeremyrnelson I tried doing a fork last year, but it's a massive amount of work. We were using uptime-kume and after 200-300 hosts, it uses a ton of CPU for no reason.
What I wanted to do was remove the useless junk that was added, and only keep the original idea of Ping, UDP, TCP, and HTTP checks.
I ran into major issues trying to merge any of these Open Pull Requests because they have been ignored for so long that the amount of conflicts is massive.
That does not surprise me at all. Honestly, very little has been added in the last year of any fundamental benefit. It actually might be easier to go back a year and start from there . Part of the reason I was attracted to it in the first place was because of the simplicity and efficiency, but that sort of got thrown out the window somewhere along the line.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 19:05 Juan Calderon-Perez @.***> wrote:
@jeremyrnelson https://github.com/jeremyrnelson I tried doing a fork last year, but it's a massive amount of work. We were using uptime-kume and after 200-300 hosts, it uses a ton of CPU for no reason.
What I wanted to do was remove the useless junk that was added, and only keep the original idea of Ping, UDP, TCP, and HTTP checks.
I ran into major issues trying to merge any of these Open Pull Requests because they have been ignored for so long that the amount of conflicts is massive.
ā Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/pull/1971#issuecomment-1601802630, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJRW5CJXGRPIVBDRNZBFGLXMN42BANCNFSM55SL672Q . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Jeremy
Please stick to the topic. If you have any ideas on how to improve a large amount of monitors, feel free to open a new pull request.
For this pr, I had already commented on https://github.com/louislam/uptime-kuma/pull/1971#issuecomment-1241166034.
And as @CommanderStorm said, the black border looks weird especially in the light theme.
Thanks for the pr. Since #3312's comprehensive filter also covers this use case, so I close it. Sorry about that.
Check out #3312 for more details.