Check_MK Internal Error Message when editing rules

Troubleshooting
,
1

CMK version: 2.5.0p8 UltimateMT
OS version: RHEL 9.8 (central and 1 distributed node), Ubuntu 24.04 (1 distributed node)

Error message: “Internal error: ‘precon-certificates’ is not a valid, non-reserved Python identifier” as a top of page banner error message after activating initial changes and attempting to edit rule(s).

Observed this behavior after updating our production instance central and distributed nodes from 2.4.0p28.cme → 2.4.0p34.cme → 2.5.0p8.ultimatemt

I submitted a crash report at the time it was observed but, unfortunately I had to roll back to 2.4.0p34 via VM snapshots so logs are unavailable if the crash report is lacking.

I did clone the central VM after rollback for further diagnostics.

I noted this post, Unable to edit rules when explicit hostname contains hyphens , regarding editing rules, 2.5.0p8 and hyphens in host names. My site CheckMK hosts urls do not contain hyphens but the OS host names do (e.g. corpnms01-1) as explicitly called out in the post. The banner error, however, did not reference the host name so I felt it was not quite the same but possibly related.

For now I’m holding off on 2.5 and will watch for updates and werks entries but wanted to post here if others have similar events and so I can get updates if it’s a known issue or is related to an existing item.

Sincerely,

Scotsie

2

How I read the linked post: solution suggests that the issue was due to predefined conditions, not so much about the hyphens in host name which was the initial assumption.

Assuming precon-certificates is a predefined condition too, and might be the same issue as the linked post.

But to be sure, maybe @robin.gierse can include your issue in the same internal ticket?

2 Likes
3

Thanks for the ping. It indeed looks like the same issue.

I linked it to our internal reference: CMK-36792

2 Likes
4

Thank you for the attention.

@Yggy , you’re correct. I never defined any pre-defined conditions and didn’t realize that specific in the conversation tree. It does look like someone else created one and used it on 1 rule. Wish I had caught this during my maintenance.

@robin.gierse, I’ll keep an out for any updates. Appreciate the information.

Sincerely,

Scotsie

1 Like