Having to monitor multiple sites and growing under Uptime and Browser Checks we would like to be able to create folders/groups to move the checks into without having to use tags. This would clean the UI for users have multiple sites so that the information we need is where we need it. We have been managing this with naming convention but when growing to 100+ checks this will become a monster to view.65 votes
Makes total sense. We are reviewing our UI to see how to better organize things so that customers with large numbers of checks can help navigate and review things
We have a need to bulk update some HTTP check parameters. I thought this might be a good opportunity to dig into the Monitoring API and maybe write an Ansible module for managing HTTP checks. I ran into problems when I found that, while I could create and delete HTTP checks, the API provided no method of updating existing checks.21 votes
This makes sense. fundamentally we need to provide a comprehensive way to update a checks settings via the API. A v1.0 of this could be to just allow updating check settings, but not say RBC steps (since bulk updating selenium steps could be challenging). Reaching out to reporters with some clarifying questions.
Status Pages: Allow annotations to be placed on service outage/degradation icons for public status pages.
Will help inform users of issues and possible post-mortem actions taken.3 votes
Excellent idea Ryan. Thanks for submitting. We are reviewing improvements to the Status Page now and will include this use case.
Some functionality on our pages opens a new tab in the user's browser. We'd like to check these processes with Real Browser Checks. Currently, the check is only able to find elements in a single tab/window allowing us to only check a portion of the process, or use 2 checks for 1 user flow.2 votes
Thanks for sharing this idea Sarah. I can see how this is a need. There might be some issues with how to support this with the underlying Selenium script engine, but we should certainly investigate. Moving to “under review” and going to talk with Engineering
I would like to request the ability for an alert to send multiple email templates at different stages in the alert. We use email to integrate with HP OpenView for tracking our alerts from different systems. We would like Rigor's alerts to be able to send a plain delimited email to OpenView for their alert system and then another normal email to my development staff.3 votes
Totally agree Doug. Thanks for sharing this idea. Our notifications system needs to be more flexible about allowing multiple different communications to occur in response to certain events, such as sending 2 different emails, to 2 different groups, using 2 different templates.
We are collecting use cases for a totally rebuild notifications system. I will include this in our planning.
Hi Rigor, I noticed that we cannot set up alerts for a test so that if it failed once it immediately emailed the group, but then if it failed twice it would text and email the group. It seems like you can only do one or the other. There are times we want to know about 'noise', but just not by text. however, if that 'noise' continues, then please text. We use the email alerts for review more then logging into Rigor to look and see if any noise occurred. Hopefully others find this useful as well.5 votes
Totally agree. Our notification system needs to be more flexible in allowing multiple different levels of alerting based on the conditions.
We are currently gathering use cases for a complete revamp of the notification system. This is a great one to include. Thanks for the suggestion Scott!
In the domain performance view (^/reports/domain_performance/[0-9]+), the hover on a check gives you the number of seconds for each domain, but it would be very helpful to be able to see the number of requests associated with each domain as well.1 vote
makes total sense and could provide a lot of value
At the moment, we set up an alert and a single contact (be it a group or email address). It would be great if we were able to add multiple notification entries and apply the alert thresholds to each entry. So for example if the entire test fails it would go to the NOC, if a specific error occurs like a 4XX then go to a particular email address like a developer for example. We shouldn't have to create multiple tests for this.3 votes
Thanks for writing in William. I totally agree. We should allow specific notification settings to tie to 1 or more threshold monitors.
We are currently defining use cases for a completely revamped notification system. This seems like a logical one to include. Moving to under review while we plan.
Since the system/contracts are based on # of allowed checks, add a count column on the landing page. Otherwise you have to manually count them. Example: http://prntscr.com/8p76bs4 votes
Both Bridgette’s initial suggestion and Kathryn’s expansion are great ideas. Simple to do, and a clear, obvious UI win
Currently, we can create a new an Alert email template per Check. I would like the ability to have templates per User or Group for notifications. This would allow "humans" to still get pretty email alerts, but also lighter alerts to other alerts contacts that may be machines, hence, we can script and scrap the alert.
100% agree Chris. Thank you for sharing this idea and use case.
We are revamping our notification system, including how templates can work, and are currently collecting use cases. This is something we should consider while doing this work.
Moving to “under review”
We would like to have sort order control of reports sent via email. In particular we would set and save a reports sort order on "Max Response Time" column Largest to Smallest so each report will be received sorted in this manner.2 votes
I can see how this would be helpful. Moving to under review as a good use case
One of my stakeholders asked if he could see his particular sites when logging in. I told him to bookmark the relevant status page. It would be great if I could designate a "landing page" for his account that would display upon login.2 votes
This is an interesting use case I hadn’t consider before Jeff. Thanks for sharing it. “Moving to under review”
Allow custom performance measurements based on element/request. This would allow measuring page load up until different points. This could be useful to see certain performance across all runs.1 vote
Our solution to this will be to support the W3C custom user timings. So you can drop pins and take measurements of basically anything. We also need to do this to support Single Page Apps. We are currently in the planning phase.
Moving to “under review”
It's great that we include green arrows or red arrows in email reports to indicate change in performance. It would be even better if we also included the percentage change, so it would be easier to see if there was a big difference from previous days.3 votes
Love this idea Melanie. A clear, obvious usability win
It would be neat if we could sort waterfall charts by the largest file size, content types, etc.2 votes
Thanks for the suggestion Melanie, I think it could help yes! Chrome Dev tools allows you to do this in their waterfall, and I personal use it fairly regularly. The entire HAR viewer could probably use a visual/usability upgrade. Moving to “under review”
Right now tags can only be applied / removed on a check-by-check basis. We should make it easy to add / remove tags in bulk by adding it as an option to our existing Bulk Change feature.3 votes
100% agree. This is the kind of thing needed when support large organizations with a large amount of checks.
We should add the ability to bulk add/remove tags via our bulk update functionality. Moving to “under review”
Right now we have the ability to bulk pause or mute checks in control groups, but sometimes you might want to pause or mute just one individual check.
We should allow a method for a command that can pause or mute a specific check via the API without creating a new control group.1 vote
100% agree. Control groups should be a short cut way to mute multiple checks, not the only option for muting checks. Thanks for the suggestion Melanie. Moving to “under review”
Current tag reports are based on daily rollups. It would be nice if users could easily see individual runs within smaller time frames on the tag report or have the option to create on the fly performance history reports based on tags.3 votes
I know inside the app, we should run-level metrics for a tag set under the “Dashboards”. Makes sense to apply this out to reports as well. Reaching out to Melanie to get some clarifying details.
It would be nice to be able to upload images or files via Real Browser Checks. This could be useful for sites that require applications or images to upload as part of an application.4 votes
Thanks for the idea. I can totally see how this would be valuable. We are investigating how to do this in RBC now.
In the meantime, you can uptime files via the API Check, (By sending a POST withy a multi-part body) which at least can help you validate the functionality of an application flow involving a file upload:
The 'ignore' option on our Content Check is awesome. It would be great if we could also filter the table by 'results' > select all with similar results > and ignore en masse.8 votes
Totally agree. Basically you want a way to select multiple checks in the table and then mark all of them as ignore, similar to the in-table-bulk-operations that Rigor Optimization provides.
There is a larger need to move bulk actions like this out of Monitoring “Bulk Edit” page and into individual tables, but this could be a good place to start
- Don't see your idea?