feat: fe/tcp port monitoring, resolves #1476 #1479
Conversation
ajhollid
changed the title
ajhollid
changed the base branch from
develop
to
feat/be/tcp-port-monitoring
WalkthroughThe pull request introduces port monitoring functionality across the Checkmate application. This feature involves adding a new monitor type called "port" that allows users to check the availability and connectivity of specific network ports. The changes span multiple components in both the client and server, including UI updates, validation schemas, database models, and network service implementations. Changes
Possibly related issues
Tip CodeRabbit's docstrings feature is now available as part of our Early Access Program! Simply use the command Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
Documentation and Community
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](/~https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (4)
Server/db/models/Monitor.js (1)
37-39: Consider validating port ranges
Sweaty palms might lead to random port usage! Theportfield lacks constraints: typical ports fall within 1–65535. Introducing a min-max validation or a default value could shield the system from unexpected out-of-range inputs.Client/src/Validation/validation.js (1)
112-112: Port field validation
This is a neat addition to ensure the front end doesn’t choke on invalid ports (like 0 or 999999). If more robust constraints are desired, you could add.min(1).max(65535)to keep it real.Client/src/Pages/Uptime/CreateUptime/index.jsx (1)
53-57: Port entry in monitorTypeMaps is coherent.Labelling the URL as "URL to monitor" could be fine, but you may consider clarifying the wording if it's strictly a hostname for the port.
Server/validation/joi.js (1)
206-206: Adding a numeric port gets a fist bump!Dropping
"port: joi.number()"is sweet for those back-end checks. Just ensure it never goes negative or out of standard port range, though the code seems fine.Use a min/max check if you want bulletproof port validation. Something like:
-port: joi.number(), +port: joi.number().min(1).max(65535),
📜 Review details
Configuration used: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (12)
Client/src/Features/UptimeMonitors/uptimeMonitorsSlice.js(1 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Uptime/CreateUptime/index.jsx(4 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Details/index.jsx(1 hunks)Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Home/UptimeTable/index.jsx(1 hunks)Client/src/Validation/validation.js(1 hunks)Server/db/models/Monitor.js(1 hunks)Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js(2 hunks)Server/index.js(2 hunks)Server/service/networkService.js(4 hunks)Server/service/statusService.js(1 hunks)Server/utils/messages.js(2 hunks)Server/validation/joi.js(3 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Details/index.jsx
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/CreateUptime/index.jsx
[error] 268-268: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
🔇 Additional comments (20)
Server/db/models/Monitor.js (1)
31-31: Ensure consistency of monitor types
This is the perfect spot to slip in the new “port” type to help with that TCP port check. Just double-check that all relevant parts of the system line up with this addition to avoid any mismatches on usage.
Server/utils/messages.js (2)
62-64: New error message: “PORT_FAIL”
The new message “Failed to connect to port” is clear and concise. Looks good—just ensure that it’s consistently wired up wherever you handle port connectivity failures.
136-137: New success message: “PORT_SUCCESS”
This gleaming success message “Port connected successfully” hits the sweet spot. Keep it consistent with your overall i18n or localization approach if you add more languages in the future.
Server/service/statusService.js (1)
146-146: Seamless integration for port checks
Port checks are now hooking in, so it’s time to drop that spaghetti. Confirm that all related database operations and navigation are aligned, especially for any analytics or metrics that rely on check data.
Server/index.js (2)
47-47: Imported net module successfully.
Great addition. Leveraging the built-in 'net' module is appropriate for TCP or port-related work.
133-133: NetworkService constructor update looks good.
Including 'net' as an argument cleanly extends the service for port monitoring. No issues noted.
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/Home/UptimeTable/index.jsx (1)
77-77: Port type included successfully.
The expanded type array ensures that port monitors are fetched. Confirm server-side availability for these types.
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/CreateUptime/index.jsx (4)
90-90: Conditional port assignment is valid.
Including the port property only when type is 'port' is well-structured.
261-271: New TextInput for port is clear.
Using the hidden prop is straightforward. The static analysis note on boolean usage is optional; your implementation is fine as is.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Biome (1.9.4)
[error] 268-268: Unnecessary use of boolean literals in conditional expression.
Simplify your code by directly assigning the result without using a ternary operator.
If your goal is negation, you may use the logical NOT (!) or double NOT (!!) operator for clearer and concise code.
Check for more details about NOT operator.
Unsafe fix: Remove the conditional expression with
(lint/complexity/noUselessTernary)
277-277: Placeholder usage is concise.
Falling back to an empty string is appropriate if a namePlaceholder is not provided.
342-350: Port monitor radio option aligns with other checks.
Consistent UI design for selecting a port monitor. Looks good.
Client/src/Features/UptimeMonitors/uptimeMonitorsSlice.js (1)
89-89: Adds 'port' to the types array properly.
Nicely matches the usage across the client for port monitoring.
Server/validation/joi.js (2)
147-152: Yo, new type is shining bright!
They added "port" in the roll call of valid monitor types, making the schema more versatile. Everything seems solid like a rock, no shady lines or second thoughts.
168-173: Another port cameo in the type array!
Repeating the groove: "port" is lined up with "http", "ping", "pagespeed", "docker", "hardware". That extra choice is dope; no red flags jump out.
Server/service/networkService.js (4)
11-11: Double-check your doc block flow, bro!
The param doc for net is on point. Ain’t no flaws in that doc hustle.
15-15: Constructor’s got net in the mix—fresh beats!
You introduced net with style, now all network-based tunes can bounce. Looks like a clean pass, no meltdown in logic.
Also applies to: 21-21, 30-30
271-323: The port-check jam is live!
Droppin’ lines for requestPort method, establishing connections like it’s breakbeats. The error handling, timeouts, and destroy calls rock steady. Just watch out for memory leaks if sockets ain’t closed on error—but you’ve handled that. Great job!
360-361: Switchin’ to the port flow—no more neglected type!
Routing "port" jobs to requestPort is consistent with the rest. Everything’s neat, so the method can vibe right along with HTTP, Docker, and Ping.
Server/db/mongo/modules/monitorModule.js (2)
24-24: ‘port: Check,’ is the new verse!
Now the CHECK_MODEL_LOOKUP spits out checks for port monitors without missing a beat. All good in these lines.
355-360: Group hug for port stats!
This “if” block adding "port" keeps the synergy with "http", "ping", and "docker". Now average response time and uptime stats can include that port vibe, too.
![llamapreview[bot]](/~https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1023541?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview
1. Overview
1.1 PR Summary
- Business value and requirements alignment: This PR introduces the frontend (FE) portion of port monitoring, aligning with the business requirements of monitoring server hardware, uptime, response times, and incidents.
- Key components modified:
- Frontend: Addition of a new "Port" monitoring type in the user interface, including validation and form handling.
- Backend: Expansion of the monitoring model to include "Port" type, integration of network service to handle "Port" monitoring, and updates to validation schemas.
- Impact assessment:
- Frontend: Enhances user interface to support "Port" monitoring, improving user experience and functionality.
- Backend: Expands monitoring capabilities, potentially increasing load and requiring efficient network I/O operations.
- System dependencies and integration impacts:
- Frontend to Backend: The frontend sends requests to the backend to create and manage "Port" type monitors, requiring robust validation and error handling.
- Backend Services: The network service interacts with the database to store and retrieve "Port" type monitor data, and the status service processes and stores check results for "Port" type monitors.
1.2 Architecture Changes
- System design modifications:
- Introduction of a new "Port" monitoring type, affecting both frontend and backend components.
- Integration of network service to handle "Port" monitoring, including new dependencies and logic for port-specific checks.
- Component interactions:
- Frontend components interact with the backend to create and manage "Port" type monitors.
- Backend services handle network operations, database interactions, and status updates for "Port" type monitors.
- Integration points:
- Frontend: Validation and form handling for "Port" type monitors.
- Backend: Network service for port-specific checks, database schema updates, and status service for processing check results.
2. Detailed Technical Analysis
2.1 Code Logic Deep-Dive
Core Logic Changes
-
Client/src/Features/UptimeMonitors/uptimeMonitorsSlice.js - getUptimeMonitorsByTeamId
- Submitted PR Code:
--- +++ @@ -79,21 +79,21 @@ ); export const getUptimeMonitorsByTeamId = createAsyncThunk( "monitors/getMonitorsByTeamId", async (token, thunkApi) => { const user = jwtDecode(token); try { const res = await networkService.getMonitorsAndSummaryByTeamId({ authToken: token, teamId: user.teamId, - types: ["http", "ping", "docker"], + types: ["http", "ping", "docker", "port"], }); return res.data; } catch (error) { if (error.response && error.response.data) { return thunkApi.rejectWithValue(error.response.data); } const payload = { status: false, msg: error.message ? error.message : "Unknown error", };
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic adds "port" to the list of types for fetching monitors. This change is straightforward but has implications for the backend service that handles this request. If the backend is not prepared to handle the new "port" type, it could lead to errors or incorrect data being returned.
- Edge cases and error handling: The backend service must be able to handle the new "port" type gracefully. If the backend does not support this type, it should return an appropriate error message.
- Cross-component impact: This change affects the data retrieval logic, which in turn impacts the UI components that display this data. If the backend returns incorrect data or errors, it could lead to UI issues.
- Business logic considerations: The addition of the "port" type should be aligned with business requirements. If the business logic for handling "port" type monitors is not fully defined, it could lead to inconsistencies.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
export const getUptimeMonitorsByTeamId = createAsyncThunk( "monitors/getMonitorsByTeamId", async (token, thunkApi) => { const user = jwtDecode(token); try { const res = await networkService.getMonitorsAndSummaryByTeamId({ authToken: token, teamId: user.teamId, types: ["http", "ping", "docker", "port"], }); if (res.data && res.data.error) { throw new Error(res.data.error); } return res.data; } catch (error) { if (error.response && error.response.data) { return thunkApi.rejectWithValue(error.response.data); } const payload = { status: false, msg: error.message ? error.message : "Unknown error", }; return thunkApi.rejectWithValue(payload); } } );
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Adding error handling for the case where the backend returns an error in the response data ensures that the frontend can gracefully handle such scenarios. This prevents potential UI issues and provides better feedback to the user.
- Business value: Ensuring that the frontend can handle errors from the backend aligns with the business requirement of providing a robust and reliable user experience.
- Risk assessment: The risk of UI issues due to backend errors is mitigated by adding this error handling. However, there is a slight risk of increased complexity in the code, which can be managed through proper testing.
- Submitted PR Code:
-
Client/src/Pages/Uptime/CreateUptime/index.jsx - handleCreateMonitor
- Submitted PR Code:
--- +++ @@ -75,20 +80,21 @@ }); const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); let form = { url: //prepending protocol for url monitor.type === "http" ? `http${https ? "s" : ""}://` + monitor.url : monitor.url, + port: monitor.type === "port" ? monitor.port : undefined, name: monitor.name === "" ? monitor.url : monitor.name, type: monitor.type, interval: monitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, }; const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(form, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) {
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic adds a "port" field to the form data if the monitor type is "port". However, this change does not handle the case where the port is not a valid number. This could lead to validation errors or incorrect data being submitted.
- Edge cases and error handling: The validation logic should ensure that the port is a valid number. If the port is not valid, an appropriate error message should be displayed to the user.
- Cross-component impact: This change affects the data submission logic, which in turn impacts the backend service that processes this data. If invalid data is submitted, it could lead to errors or inconsistencies in the backend.
- Business logic considerations: The addition of the "port" field should be aligned with business requirements. If the business logic for handling "port" type monitors is not fully defined, it could lead to inconsistencies.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
const handleCreateMonitor = async (event) => { event.preventDefault(); let form = { url: //prepending protocol for url monitor.type === "http" ? `http${https ? "s" : ""}://` + monitor.url : monitor.url, port: monitor.type === "port" ? parseInt(monitor.port, 10) : undefined, name: monitor.name === "" ? monitor.url : monitor.name, type: monitor.type, interval: monitor.interval * MS_PER_MINUTE, }; const { error } = monitorValidation.validate(form, { abortEarly: false, }); if (error) { return; } // Proceed with monitor creation logic };
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Parsing the port as an integer ensures that the data submitted is in the correct format. This prevents potential validation errors and ensures that the backend receives valid data.
- Business value: Ensuring that the port is a valid number aligns with the business requirement of maintaining data integrity.
- Risk assessment: The risk of validation errors due to invalid port numbers is mitigated by adding this parsing logic. However, there is a slight risk of increased complexity in the code, which can be managed through proper testing.
- Submitted PR Code:
-
Server/service/networkService.js - requestPort
- Submitted PR Code:
--- +++ @@ -254,20 +257,74 @@ dockerResponse.message = error.reason || errorMessages.DOCKER_FAIL; return dockerResponse; } dockerResponse.status = response?.State?.Status === "running" ? true : false; dockerResponse.code = 200; dockerResponse.message = successMessages.DOCKER_SUCCESS; return dockerResponse; } catch (error) { error.service = this.SERVICE_NAME; error.method = "requestDocker"; + throw error; + } + } + + async requestPort(job) { + try { + const { url, port } = job.data; + const { response, responseTime, error } = await this.timeRequest(async () => { + return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { + const socket = this.net.createConnection( + { + host: url, + port, + }, + () => { + socket.end(); + socket.destroy(); + resolve({ success: true }); + } + ); + + socket.setTimeout(5000); + socket.on("timeout", () => { + socket.destroy(); + reject(new Error("Connection timeout")); + }); + + socket.on("error", (err) => { + socket.destroy(); + reject(err); + }); + }); + }); + + const portResponse = { + monitorId: job.data._id, + type: job.data.type, + responseTime, + }; + + if (error) { + portResponse.status = false; + portResponse.code = this.NETWORK_ERROR; + portResponse.message = errorMessages.PORT_FAIL; + return portResponse; + } + + portResponse.status = response.success; + portResponse.code = 200; + portResponse.message = successMessages.PORT_SUCCESS; + return portResponse; + } catch (error) { + error.service = this.SERVICE_NAME; + error.method = "requestTCP"; throw error; } }
- Analysis:
- Current logic and potential issues: The current logic creates a TCP connection to the specified URL and port. However, it does not handle the case where the URL is invalid or the port is not open. This could lead to false positives or negatives in monitoring results.
- Edge cases and error handling: The error handling should be robust enough to handle various network errors, such as invalid URLs, closed ports, or network timeouts. Appropriate error messages should be logged and returned to the caller.
- Cross-component impact: This change affects the network service, which in turn impacts the monitoring results and the UI components that display these results. If the network service returns incorrect data or errors, it could lead to UI issues.
- Business logic considerations: The addition of the "port" type monitoring should be aligned with business requirements. If the business logic for handling "port" type monitors is not fully defined, it could lead to inconsistencies.
- LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
async requestPort(job) { try { const { url, port } = job.data; const { response, responseTime, error } = await this.timeRequest(async () => { return new Promise((resolve, reject) => { const socket = this.net.createConnection( { host: url, port, }, () => { socket.end(); socket.destroy(); resolve({ success: true }); } ); socket.setTimeout(5000); socket.on("timeout", () => { socket.destroy(); reject(new Error("Connection timeout")); }); socket.on("error", (err) => { socket.destroy(); reject(err); }); }); }); const portResponse = { monitorId: job.data._id, type: job.data.type, responseTime, }; if (error) { portResponse.status = false; portResponse.code = this.NETWORK_ERROR; portResponse.message = errorMessages.PORT_FAIL; this.logger.error({ message: error.message, service: this.SERVICE_NAME, method: "requestPort", jobData: job.data, }); return portResponse; } portResponse.status = response.success; portResponse.code = 200; portResponse.message = successMessages.PORT_SUCCESS; return portResponse; } catch (error) { error.service = this.SERVICE_NAME; error.method = "requestPort"; throw error; } }
- Improvement rationale:
- Technical benefits: Adding detailed error logging ensures that network errors are properly recorded and can be investigated if necessary. This improves the robustness of the network service and aids in troubleshooting.
- Business value: Ensuring that network errors are properly handled and logged aligns with the business requirement of maintaining reliable monitoring results.
- Risk assessment: The risk of false positives or negatives due to network errors is mitigated by adding detailed error logging. However, there is a slight risk of increased complexity in the code, which can be managed through proper testing.
- Submitted PR Code:
2.2 Implementation Quality
- Code organization and structure:
- The code is well-organized, with clear separation of concerns and modular design. Each component handles specific responsibilities, making the codebase maintainable and scalable.
- Design patterns usage:
- The use of design patterns such as async/await for asynchronous operations, promises for handling network requests, and error handling mechanisms ensures that the code is robust and efficient.
- Error handling approach:
- The code includes comprehensive error handling, with appropriate logging and error messages. This ensures that any issues are properly managed and can be investigated if necessary.
- Resource management:
- The code efficiently manages resources, such as network connections and database interactions, ensuring that the system remains performant and reliable.
3. Critical Findings
3.1 Potential Issues
-
🔴 Critical Issues
-
Issue description: The backend service may not be prepared to handle the new "port" type, leading to errors or incorrect data being returned.
-
Impact: This could result in UI issues and inconsistent monitoring results.
-
Recommendation: Ensure that the backend service is updated to handle the new "port" type and that appropriate error handling is in place.
-
Issue description: The validation logic for "Port" type monitors does not handle the case where the port is not a valid number.
-
Impact: This could lead to validation errors or incorrect data being submitted.
-
Recommendation: Update the validation logic to ensure that the port is a valid number and display appropriate error messages to the user.
-
Issue description: The network service does not handle the case where the URL is invalid or the port is not open.
-
Impact: This could lead to false positives or negatives in monitoring results.
-
Recommendation: Enhance the error handling in the network service to handle various network errors, such as invalid URLs, closed ports, or network timeouts.
-
-
🟡 Warnings
-
Warning description: The addition of the "port" type monitoring may introduce additional load on the system, particularly if many "Port" type monitors are created.
-
Potential risks: This could impact the performance and scalability of the system.
-
Suggested improvements: Conduct load testing to assess the performance impact and ensure that the system can handle a high volume of concurrent "Port" type checks.
-
Warning description: The network operations for port monitoring need to be efficient to avoid performance bottlenecks.
-
Potential risks: Inefficient network operations could lead to increased latency and reduced throughput.
-
Suggested improvements: Optimize the network service to ensure efficient network I/O operations and minimize latency.
-
3.2 Code Quality Concerns
- Maintainability aspects:
- The codebase is well-organized and modular, making it maintainable and scalable.
- Ensure that the code is properly documented to aid future maintenance and development.
- Readability issues:
- The code is generally readable, with clear variable names and well-structured functions.
- Consider adding comments to explain complex logic or non-obvious code sections.
- Performance bottlenecks:
- The network service should be optimized to ensure efficient network I/O operations and minimize latency.
- Conduct load testing to identify and address any performance bottlenecks.
4. Security Assessment
- Authentication/Authorization impacts:
- The addition of the "port" type monitoring does not impact authentication or authorization mechanisms.
- Data handling concerns:
- Ensure that sensitive data, such as port numbers and URLs, are properly sanitized and validated to prevent injection attacks or invalid data from being stored in the database.
- Input validation:
- Proper validation of "Port" type inputs is critical to prevent injection attacks or invalid data from being stored in the database.
- Security best practices:
- Follow security best practices, such as input validation, sanitization, and proper error handling, to ensure the security and integrity of the system.
- Potential security risks:
- Invalid or malicious input data could lead to injection attacks or data corruption.
- Mitigation strategies:
- Implement robust input validation and sanitization mechanisms to prevent injection attacks.
- Ensure that error handling is comprehensive and that sensitive data is properly secured.
- Security testing requirements:
- Conduct security testing to identify and address any potential vulnerabilities in the input validation and access control mechanisms.
5. Testing Strategy
5.1 Test Coverage
- Unit test analysis:
- Comprehensive unit tests for the
requestPortmethod and other network service functions related to "Port" type monitoring. - Unit tests for frontend validation logic to ensure that all edge cases are covered.
- Comprehensive unit tests for the
- Integration test requirements:
- End-to-end tests that cover the creation, management, and monitoring of "Port" type monitors.
- Tests that simulate network failures and other edge cases to ensure robustness.
- Edge cases coverage:
- Ensure that all edge cases, such as invalid URLs, closed ports, or network timeouts, are covered in the tests.
5.2 Test Recommendations
Suggested Test Cases
// Example unit test for requestPort method
describe('requestPort', () => {
it('should return success response for open port', async () => {
const job = { data: { url: 'localhost', port: 5173 } };
const networkService = new NetworkService(axios, ping, logger, http, Docker, net);
const response = await networkService.requestPort(job);
expect(response.status).toBe(true);
expect(response.code).toBe(200);
expect(response.message).toBe(successMessages.PORT_SUCCESS);
});
it('should return error response for closed port', async () => {
const job = { data: { url: 'localhost', port: 5174 } };
const networkService = new NetworkService(axios, ping, logger, http, Docker, net);
const response = await networkService.requestPort(job);
expect(response.status).toBe(false);
expect(response.code).toBe(this.NETWORK_ERROR);
expect(response.message).toBe(errorMessages.PORT_FAIL);
});
it('should return error response for invalid URL', async () => {
const job = { data: { url: 'invalid_url', port: 5173 } };
const networkService = new NetworkService(axios, ping, logger, http, Docker, net);
const response = await networkService.requestPort(job);
expect(response.status).toBe(false);
expect(response.code).toBe(this.NETWORK_ERROR);
expect(response.message).toBe(errorMessages.PORT_FAIL);
});
});- Coverage improvements:
- Ensure that the tests cover all edge cases and potential error scenarios.
- Conduct load testing to assess the performance impact of adding "Port" type monitors.
- Performance testing needs:
- Conduct performance testing to identify and address any bottlenecks in the network service and ensure that the system can handle a high volume of concurrent "Port" type checks.
6. Documentation & Maintenance
- Documentation updates needed:
- Update the API documentation to include the new "Port" type monitoring.
- Update the architecture documentation to reflect the changes in the system design.
- Long-term maintenance considerations:
- Ensure that the code is properly documented to aid future maintenance and development.
- Regularly review and update the documentation to keep it current and accurate.
- Technical debt and monitoring requirements:
- Monitor the performance and reliability of the network service to identify and address any technical debt or issues.
- Implement monitoring and alerting to detect and respond to any issues in real-time.
7. Deployment & Operations
- Deployment impact and strategy:
- The deployment of the "Port" type monitoring changes should be carefully planned and tested to ensure that there are no disruptions to the existing system.
- Key operational considerations:
- Ensure that the network service is properly configured and optimized to handle the additional load of "Port" type monitoring.
- Monitor the system for any performance or reliability issues and address them promptly.
8. Summary & Recommendations
8.1 Key Action Items
-
Critical changes required:
- Update the backend service to handle the new "port" type and ensure appropriate error handling.
- Update the validation logic to ensure that the port is a valid number and display appropriate error messages to the user.
- Enhance the error handling in the network service to handle various network errors, such as invalid URLs, closed ports, or network timeouts.
-
Important improvements suggested:
- Conduct load testing to assess the performance impact and ensure that the system can handle a high volume of concurrent "Port" type checks.
- Optimize the network service to ensure efficient network I/O operations and minimize latency.
-
Best practices to implement:
- Follow security best practices, such as input validation, sanitization, and proper error handling, to ensure the security and integrity of the system.
- Ensure that the code is properly documented to aid future maintenance and development.
-
Cross-cutting concerns to address:
- Ensure that the network service is properly configured and optimized to handle the additional load of "Port" type monitoring.
- Monitor the system for any performance or reliability issues and address them promptly.
8.2 Future Considerations
- Technical evolution path:
- Continuously monitor and optimize the network service to ensure efficient and reliable monitoring.
- Regularly review and update the documentation to keep it current and accurate.
- Business capability evolution:
- Explore opportunities to expand the monitoring capabilities and add new monitor types as needed.
- Ensure that the system remains scalable and performant as the number of monitors grows.
- System integration impacts:
- Ensure that the integration points between the frontend and backend are properly managed and tested to avoid any disruptions.
- Regularly review and update the integration points to keep them current and efficient.
💡 Help Shape LlamaPReview
How's this review format working for you? Vote in our Github Discussion Polls to help us improve your review experience!
| joi.string().valid("http", "ping", "pagespeed", "docker", "hardware"), | ||
| joi.string().valid("http", "ping", "pagespeed", "docker", "hardware", "port"), | ||
| joi | ||
| .array() | ||
| .items(joi.string().valid("http", "ping", "pagespeed", "docker", "hardware")) | ||
| .items( | ||
| joi.string().valid("http", "ping", "pagespeed", "docker", "hardware", "port") | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could extract these to a variable, maybe an array, and destructure them here. That way we can update in one place and use it in four, do you like the idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely, it was a pain tracking these down all over the app 😂.
Good idea, how about I open a separate PR for that one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's better =)
This PR is the FE half of port monitoring