Skip to content
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

[receiver/tlscheck] Inital Commit of TLS Check Receiver #35441

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 9, 2024

Conversation

michael-burt
Copy link
Contributor

@michael-burt michael-burt commented Sep 26, 2024

Description: Initial commit of TLS Check Receiver, a new component aimed at emitting metrics about the expoiry of x.509 certs.

Link to tracking Issue: 35423

Testing: Test files added

Documentation: README.md & metadata.yaml added

@michael-burt michael-burt requested a review from a team as a code owner September 26, 2024 16:19
@michael-burt michael-burt changed the title Draft: Inital Commit of TLS Check Receiver [receiver/tlscheck] Inital Commit of TLS Check Receiver Sep 26, 2024
@michael-burt michael-burt force-pushed the tlscheckreceiver branch 4 times, most recently from 77ab636 to b1818e0 Compare September 26, 2024 17:35
@crobert-1 crobert-1 requested a review from atoulme September 26, 2024 18:24
@michael-burt michael-burt force-pushed the tlscheckreceiver branch 2 times, most recently from 4732a4a to 2ebf9ee Compare September 26, 2024 19:01
@michael-burt michael-burt force-pushed the tlscheckreceiver branch 5 times, most recently from 9ef2ddd to b2e523a Compare September 27, 2024 05:05
if cfg.URL == "" {
err = multierr.Append(err, errMissingURL)
} else {
_, parseErr := url.ParseRequestURI(cfg.URL)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the expected behavior (of validate && the receiver) for a non-https URL? I would expect it to be invalid at validate time, as I don't see a good mechanism for returning that information at runtime in a way that would be consumable.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That is a good point and something definitely overlooked.

For the sake of the PR being open so long and becoming harder to merge, I would love to see this as a follow up PR instead updating the current PR.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think we should allow for scheme. We do not need to send an http request here, only establish tcp connection, so scheme doesn't make sense. Related, I think we should change url to host since we are connecting to a host address via tcp, not sending a http request to a url.

@MovieStoreGuy MovieStoreGuy merged commit a1d7a33 into open-telemetry:main Oct 9, 2024
155 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the next release milestone Oct 9, 2024
@michael-burt michael-burt deleted the tlscheckreceiver branch October 16, 2024 04:09
sbylica-splunk pushed a commit to sbylica-splunk/opentelemetry-collector-contrib that referenced this pull request Dec 17, 2024
…ry#35441)

**Description:** Initial commit of TLS Check Receiver, a new component
aimed at emitting metrics about the expoiry of x.509 certs.

**Link to tracking Issue:**
[35423](open-telemetry#35423)

**Testing:** Test files added

**Documentation:** `README.md` & `metadata.yaml` added
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants