Skip to content

Conversation

@monganai
Copy link
Member

@monganai monganai commented Oct 17, 2025

What does this PR do?

Upgrades the pihole check to support version 6

Motivation

The check has been outdated for some time with the upgrade to v6

Review checklist

  • PR has a meaningful title or PR has the no-changelog label attached
  • Feature or bugfix has tests
  • Git history is clean
  • If PR impacts documentation, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo
  • If this PR includes a log pipeline, please add a description describing the remappers and processors.

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

@monganai monganai requested a review from a team as a code owner October 17, 2025 11:14
@monganai monganai changed the title [Draft] Upgrading pihole check to support v6+ of pihole Upgrading pihole check to support v6+ of pihole Oct 17, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 7, 2025

This pull request has not been updated for more than 21 days. If there are no updates to this PR within 7 days, it will be closed. If you'd like to re-open this PR after it's been closed, you can start from the latest master branch or pull the latest changes into your branch and create a new pull request.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Nov 7, 2025
@sarah-witt sarah-witt removed the stale label Nov 12, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@sarah-witt sarah-witt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you so much for the PR!

Comment on lines 22 to 27
- name: legacy_check
required: true
description: Set this to true for pihole v5 support
value:
example: false
type: boolean
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- name: legacy_check
required: true
description: Set this to true for pihole v5 support
value:
example: false
type: boolean
- name: legacy_check
required: false
enabled: true
description: Set this to true for pihole v5 support
value:
example: false
type: boolean

Can we make this enabled by default, but not required so we don't break existing customers?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I was not clear enough on this comment! Could you change this back to be false here, but then set default: true? I left a comment on where to add the default in the check code.

Copy link
Contributor

@sarah-witt sarah-witt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks so much for the update! I was not as clear as I should have been with the configuration behavior, but once this is fixed we can merge 🚀

if not self.host: # Check if a host parameter exists in conf.yaml
raise ConfigurationError('Error, please fix pihole.d/conf.yaml, host parameter is required')
self.web_password = self.instance.get('web_password')
self.v5_pihole = self.instance.get('legacy_check')
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
self.v5_pihole = self.instance.get('legacy_check')
self.v5_pihole = self.instance.get('legacy_check', True)

Comment on lines 22 to 27
- name: legacy_check
required: true
description: Set this to true for pihole v5 support
value:
example: false
type: boolean
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I was not clear enough on this comment! Could you change this back to be false here, but then set default: true? I left a comment on where to add the default in the check code.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants