Duration of a down event in the succeeded email notification

[cpina]

In the succeeded email notification I receive:

Monitor http on servidor succeeded!
Recovered at: 2022-03-05 06:35:53+00:00
Additional info: 200 in 0.08s

Feature request: to write how long it was down.

[jamesoff]

This used to be included until I broke the code :) but I do remember I was working on fixing it... I must have a branch somewhere with the changes on so I'll see about finishing it and merging it!

[cpina]

Ha! I recently updated my server (including simplemonitor) and I see that preivously:

Monitor fibracat-ping on host servidor64 is back up.
Originally failed at: 2022-02-16 23:09:55
Downtime: 0+00:07:11
Description: checking host xxxx is pingable

I had thought that I had seen it and then I thought that perhaps it was another monitoring system that I use :)
I'll update my simplemonitor when it's fixed then.
Thanks!

[jamesoff]

I had a look and the code is already merged to the develop branch but not yet in a proper release.

[cpina]

Thanks! - do you have a favourite way to use the develop branch? I've tried quickly with pip install -e [email protected]:jamesoff/simplemonitor.git@develop#egg=simplemonitor and alike with no luck. I think that in the past there was requirements.txt that I had used for quickly using a specific branch :-)

Otherwise I will try to try again in the evening...

[jamesoff]

That should work. Make sure you're on a recent pip, and you (on recent pips) need to change the URL to git+https (or similar), but I just tested in a fresh venv and this worked ok:

pip install -e 'git+https://github.com/jamesoff/simplemonitor.git@develop#egg=simplemonitor'

That's with Python 3.9.4 and pip 22.0.4 (which I upgraded inside the venv before installing simplemonitor; the supplied one was 20.x, and fails to install the cryptography package).

[cpina]

Confirmed, with pip 22.0.4 and the the pip install that you shared it's up and running. I will comment if you want when I see a down/up email with the duration :-)

[jamesoff]

Yay!

I've spotted a small bug and will push a fix to develop shortly: it's formatting the timestamp incorrectly (I got one which was 0+0:00:60 instead of 0+0:01:00)