On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, > > Am 14.10.20 um 15:29 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > > As previously discussed above, we can probably keep monitor-uri for now > > as it works. It's not the most elegant thing in the code but replacing > > it will be at least as annoying for some users as it is to keep it in > > the code. Probably that we could update the doc to encourage use of > > http-request return though. If someone has a good proposal that does > > both monitor-uri and monitor-fail in one line, that would be nice (e.g. > > maybe with Tim's new "iif"). > > I believe I already said it somewhere: The most valuable thing about > monitor-uri is that it does not create entries within the access log. I > don't think that can be replicated with http-request return as of now, > but I am happy to learn otherwise.
That's a good point indeed. At some point we thought about making the return directive flexible enough to support termination modes which would update different counters or adjust the log level. That might be something to refresh for 2.4. But I'm not against keeping monitor-uri, I know it's easy to use and convenient. It's just a bit limited and users don't always know how it interacts with other rule sets. Nothing really harmful. But having the doc suggest how to do it with http-request rules would be a great way to educate users. Willy