Repeat question - Alert inheriting

[BanditBBS]

I know this has been asked before, and maybe even by me, but you know, some of the best shows on TV are even better in reruns!

I have my two windows admins set as contacts on the host of every windows server. They of course get alerts for the hosts and all services on those hosts. What if I add a new service, that, lets say, monitors a process and I only want the application owner to get alerts. If I add that person as contact on the service, what do I have to do to that definition to make it so the windows admins do not also get the alerts?

Thanks

[tmcdonald]

As far as the brains in the room are concerned, can't be done. Core request time!

[BanditBBS]

As far as the brains in the room are concerned, can't be done. Core request time!

Grrr, that is just a basic need

This should work as a workaround, right:
The windows admins are all added via template as a contact group. If I modify the service definition and add the user(s) I want contacted as individual contacts and then go to the contactgroups and select "null", that should do what I want, right?

EDIT: Signed up and made my first post on the core tracker! grrrr

[tmcdonald]

Unless I misunderstood, this should work. In the legacy CCM there is a (?) icon you can click next to the contact groups section that explains fairly well.

[BanditBBS]

I'm just going to have to find time to test. I know I used the "null" before and it didn't do exactly what I thought it would do.

[BanditBBS]

Ok, I just tested this, and now asking someone at Nagios confirm I'm not brain dead or that I am...whichever

On my dev server, I am the only contact and I belong to the admins contact group
I added a second contact(outside email address) and added it to a new contactgroup called test

I created a test host and set alerts to admins
I created a test service and set no contactgroup

I sent a custom notification on the service and I got it.
I added the contactgroup test to the service, send another custome notification and the test contact got it, but I did not. So that sounds like it ignores the host contactgroup if I add one to the service, right? setting the option to NULL made nobody get the notification and setting to + was same action as Standard.

So, umm....AHHHH. What's going on here?

[tmcdonald]

Ok, I just tested this, and now asking someone at Nagios confirm I'm not brain dead or that I am...whichever :)

I'll do my best...

Is this sorta what you have going on in the first scenario? The one where you get the email but the test user does not.

[BanditBBS]

I'll do my best...
Is this sorta what you have going on in the first scenario? The one where you get the email but the test user does not.

I saw this picture on my way home and it gave me a good chuckle...hasn't Ethan bought the office Visio yet? LOL

Seriously though, the answer to my original question should have been this:
1.) Just add a contactgroup to the service and the contactgroup on the host will be ignored
2.) Add the individual contacts to the service and set the contactgroup option on the service to NULL

Either one of those would have answered my original question. My second question in my later reply, is just asking you to verify the way I described is as expected behavior, so I know it won't get broken in the future.

[tmcdonald]

I saw this picture on my way home and it gave me a good chuckle...hasn't Ethan bought the office Visio yet? LOL

I find a $1.49 pen beats $149 software in price, learning curve, setup time, ease of use, maintainability, stability, dependencies, resource allocation, localization, and customization. Plus it's DRM-free!

Seriously though, the answer to my original question should have been this:
1.) Just add a contactgroup to the service and the contactgroup on the host will be ignored
2.) Add the individual contacts to the service and set the contactgroup option on the service to NULL

Either one of those would have answered my original question. My second question in my later reply, is just asking you to verify the way I described is as expected behavior, so I know it won't get broken in the future.

Yes, that is expected behavior. Hosts sort of act like templates for services in this case.