[Nut-upsdev] Usage of 'alarm_(init|set|commit)'

[Arjen de Korte]

Replying to myself... :-)

> I think the alarm_* functions are an excellent way to convey informative
> messages about UPS status/problems to an operator (a human, if we
> disregard the trained monkeys some people may use). Therefor, I want to
> propose that we use a free format here and not a list of predefined status
> words for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Situations that need to be dealt with immediately (in a matter of
> seconds) are dealt with through 'ups.status'. This requires automatic
> parsing and therefor we are restricted here to a fixed set of status
> words.
>
> 2) Alarms typically can't be solved without intervention of an operator
> and don't require *immediate* action. This means they don't need to be
> parsed automatically, hence we're not restricted by a fixed set of status
> words.
>
> 3) We don't want to loose information by grouping similar, but not
> entirely identical situations under one alarm report. Instead, we want to
> be as precise as possible, in order to help the operator resolve the
> problem.

The above also formalises the existing implementation in the 'bcmxcp' and
'gamatronic' drivers. As can be seen there, both have a wide variety of
alarms, which supports the idea that we should keep this a free format
(there probably aren't that many common alarms between drivers anyway).

Again, any thoughts?

Best regards, Arjen