-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
GoogleChat: ThreadKey #49
Comments
I agree this would be good. It should work for Slack too. There is related discussion in #45. If you're not using |
I agree with the concepts of #45 and think that would make things "better" :) Even without the (extraneous) "Upgraded" message, I was thinking we should do a thread per release. We have ~150 different charts, in each of 3 namespaces currently, and think it might be better to keep the namespace/releasename notifications each in their own thread, rather than each as a separate message. |
If #45 was done, and assuming you are not using Perhaps the idea is that all upgrades of Chart A in the Production Namespace (for example) would go into a single thread? |
Correct, my goal would be to combine all the upgrades of namespace/release-name into a single thread, instead of having to search back in the message history to find the last time someone changed something on this release. Your mention of "Chart A" goes back to my initial thoughts of this may end up needing to be sortof "template" based where you could maybe use a "go-template" to define the threadkey with a set of "defined" variables? |
It would be nice if we could (optionally) set a
&threadKey=.......
. Initially this should benamespace/release_name
. This could get really fancy, where you have some sort of "templating language" to allow people to customize how they appear, but for now we just want the "upgrading" and the "upgraded" message to appear in the same thread, and would really like it if they were all together.. see screenshot.I am not sure which other "handlers" support a simple threadKey type argument on the webhook URL, but I would bet that Google did not innovate that :)
~tommy
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: