From 8740687e0f93f03a8b65fb4f89f4e280c89160e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jarrod Johnson Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:55:14 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Reduce severity of generic discrete assert to 'Ok' In practice, generic discrete sensors have not indicated good *or* bad health They have most commonly been used to indicate something like a particular option being available or user disabled. This does mean that something trying to use an utterly generic discrete sensor will not trigger a health issue, but hopefully those cases leverage more informative events that do have clear 'health' connotations. There remains the chance that a sensor will rely upon the vocabulary of the text in SDR and that just cannot be avoided. Change-Id: I777b2f1300301291ca5a3aa7a6b18de1de6f9d1a --- pyghmi/ipmi/private/constants.py | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/pyghmi/ipmi/private/constants.py b/pyghmi/ipmi/private/constants.py index 671bc401..07f8e8c8 100644 --- a/pyghmi/ipmi/private/constants.py +++ b/pyghmi/ipmi/private/constants.py @@ -80,9 +80,9 @@ sensor_type_codes = { } # This is from table 42-2 -#For severity, we really have very little to go on in this case -#Optimistically assume 'warning' when generic sensors have something -#to assert +#digital discrete poses a challenge from a health perspective. So far all +#observed ones are no more or less 'healthy' by being asserted or not asserted +#for example asserting that an add-on is installed discrete_type_offsets = { 2: { @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ discrete_type_offsets = { }, 1: { 'desc': 'Asserted', - 'severity': const.Health.Warning, + 'severity': const.Health.Ok, }, }, 4: {