-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
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
Is it possible to de-duplicate alerts differentiated by receivers in the UI? #5144
Comments
I can echo the request, and would also like to see this feature (or suggestions on how to do achieve it if already possible!) |
@prymitive I'm interested in working on this as we have multiple receivers and the dashboard is getting confusing pretty fast now. I'd like some guidance on what do you think is the best way forward, if you don't mind? thank you! |
Update on this one, sometimes being too specific and trying to play around alertmanager's limits can lead to duplicated alerts |
Here's what I came up with as a possible solution:
This is similar to actions performed by What do folks think? |
@filippog I appreciate you trying to move forward on this. My 2c below. I think the most useful functionality here is merging alerts for all For configuration I think verbiage using a
|
Thank you for your ideas and input @craized ! I agree that merging receivers is more intuitive, though as far as I can see it would be a more invasive change: |
Our alertmanager instances will route alerts to any number of receivers based on labels attached to the alert, this can often result in alerts being duplicated in Karma's UI multiple times. In the documentation, I see that I can exclude, or keep alerts routed to specific receivers, however, I don't know ahead of time which combination(s) of receivers will actually receive the alerts, so using this isn't feasible. Is it possible to simply de-duplicate the alerts, ignoring the value in receiver? I tried adding "@\receiver" to the labels.strip field, however, this doesn't work given it's not really a label. Any suggestions are appreciated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: