feat: Add SMART attribute override functionality by AIndoria · Pull Request #835 · AnalogJ/scrutiny

AIndoria · 2025-12-07T19:15:01Z

This PR introduces a new 'attribute_overrides' section to scrutiny.yaml. It allows users to:

Ignore specific SMART attributes (preventing false/old but irrelevant positives).
Force status (pass/warn/fail) for specific attributes.
Set custom thresholds (warn_above/fail_above) for attribute values.

This addresses issues like #522, #332, and #369 where vendor-specific attributes or specific scenarios cause incorrect failure reports or prevent custom thresholding. Partially I was tired of an error from early age of a disk showing the entire disk as FAILED despite perfect repeated badblocks testing. Note, I did code portions of this and used help from an LLM for other portions. I did also test this fairly significantly - but would appreciate testing from other users if possible.

This also includes unit tests for the new logic.

This feature allows users to override SMART attribute behavior at the host level. Users can now: - Ignore specific attributes entirely. - Force a specific status (passed, warn, failed) for an attribute. - Set custom thresholds (warn_above, fail_above) for attribute values. This is configured via a new section in the scrutiny.yaml file.

Copilot

Pull request overview

This PR introduces SMART attribute override functionality to allow users to customize how specific SMART attributes are evaluated. The feature enables ignoring problematic attributes, forcing specific statuses, and setting custom thresholds to address false positives from vendor-specific attributes.

Key changes:

New AttributeOverride model with support for ignore, force_status, and threshold-based overrides
Integration of override logic into the SMART data processing pipeline with device status recalculation
Comprehensive unit test coverage for override scenarios

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 6 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
webapp/backend/pkg/models/attribute_override.go	Introduces the `AttributeOverride` model defining the structure for user-configured attribute overrides
webapp/backend/pkg/database/scrutiny_repository_device_smart_attributes.go	Implements core override logic including loading, matching, and applying overrides to SMART attributes
webapp/backend/pkg/database/scrutiny_repository_device_smart_attributes_test.go	Adds comprehensive unit tests covering various override scenarios (ignore, force_status, thresholds, mismatches)
webapp/backend/pkg/database/scrutiny_repository_device.go	Updates device status persistence to always overwrite (not merge) to properly clear old failure flags
webapp/backend/pkg/web/handler/upload_device_metrics.go	Changes status update logic to always persist evaluated status, ensuring old failures are cleared when resolved
webapp/backend/pkg/config/config.go	Adds default configuration for `smart.attribute_overrides`
webapp/backend/pkg/web/server_test.go	Adds mock expectations for new InfluxDB initialization config keys to fix test failures
example.scrutiny.yaml	Adds documentation and examples for the new attribute override configuration

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:46Z

-////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 func (sr *scrutinyRepository) SaveSmartAttributes(ctx context.Context, wwn string, collectorSmartData collector.SmartInfo) (measurements.Smart, error) {
+	sr.logger.Infof("SaveSmartAttributes called for wwn=%s", wwn)


[nitpick] The Infof log at this line will log on every SMART attribute save operation, which could be quite frequent in production. Consider using Debugf instead for this type of operational logging to avoid log verbosity.

Suggested change

sr.logger.Infof("SaveSmartAttributes called for wwn=%s", wwn)

sr.logger.Debugf("SaveSmartAttributes called for wwn=%s", wwn)

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:46Z

+		overrides = append(overrides, ao)
+	}
+
+	sr.logger.Infof("Loaded %d attribute overrides from config", len(overrides))


[nitpick] This Infof log is called on every SMART data upload and will execute the loop iteration even when there are no overrides configured (most common case). The logging should be moved inside the if len(overrides) == 0 check or reduced to Debugf level to avoid excessive logging in production.

Suggested change

sr.logger.Infof("Loaded %d attribute overrides from config", len(overrides))

sr.logger.Debugf("Loaded %d attribute overrides from config", len(overrides))

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:46Z

+	for attrKey, attrData := range smart.Attributes {
+		override := sr.matchingOverride(smart.DeviceProtocol, wwn, attrKey, overrides)
+		if override != nil {
+			sr.logger.Infof("Applying override to attribute %s: action=%s", attrKey, override.Action)


[nitpick] This Infof log is inside a loop over all attributes and will generate a log entry for every matched override on every SMART upload. Consider using Debugf instead to reduce log verbosity in production.

Suggested change

sr.logger.Infof("Applying override to attribute %s: action=%s", attrKey, override.Action)

sr.logger.Debugf("Applying override to attribute %s: action=%s", attrKey, override.Action)

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:47Z

+	// apply host-level attribute overrides before persisting or notifying
+	attributeOverrides := sr.loadAttributeOverrides()
+	sr.applyAttributeOverrides(&deviceSmartData, wwn, attributeOverrides)


The loadAttributeOverrides() function is called on every SMART data save operation, causing repeated configuration parsing and map allocation. Consider caching the parsed overrides (e.g., loading once during repository initialization or using a cached value with a reload mechanism) to improve performance, especially for systems with many devices reporting frequently.

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:47Z

+		}
+
+		sr.logger.Debugf("  MATCH!")
+		return &o


Returning a pointer to the loop variable o can lead to unexpected behavior. The loop variable is reused in each iteration, so all returned pointers could point to the same memory location with the last iteration's value. Copy the value or return by index: return &overrides[ndx] instead of return &o.

Suggested change

return &o

return &overrides[ndx]

Copilot · 2025-12-07T19:18:47Z

+	case "ignore":
+		return setAttributeStatus(attr, pkg.AttributeStatusPassed, "Ignored by attribute override")


The "ignore" action is handled twice: once at the beginning (lines 305-307) and again in the switch statement (lines 314-315). The first check makes the switch case unreachable. Remove the duplicate case from the switch statement.

Suggested change

case "ignore":

return setAttributeStatus(attr, pkg.AttributeStatusPassed, "Ignored by attribute override")

kaysond · 2026-02-02T05:02:45Z

@AIndoria - can you rebase this?

AIndoria · 2026-02-03T07:53:48Z

@AIndoria - can you rebase this?

No problems. I haven't taken a look at this lately since I first touched it, I'll fix the dumb mistakes I made that Copilot pointed out and then cherry pick.

kaysond · 2026-02-05T00:39:29Z

@AIndoria - can you rebase this?

No problems. I haven't taken a look at this lately since I first touched it, I'll fix the dumb mistakes I made that Copilot pointed out and then cherry pick.

Would you mind also taking a look at this - #375 and #374 ? I believe your config updates would take care of this too right?

AIndoria · 2026-02-06T06:35:38Z

@AIndoria - can you rebase this?

No problems. I haven't taken a look at this lately since I first touched it, I'll fix the dumb mistakes I made that Copilot pointed out and then cherry pick.

Would you mind also taking a look at this - #375 and #374 ? I believe your config updates would take care of this too right?

Ironically, it does seem like Starosdev#118 did the ugly-work for most of us. Fixed the blunders I made and integrated it. Opinions on proceeding forward?

kaysond · 2026-02-13T18:59:58Z

Ironically, it does seem like Starosdev#118 did the ugly-work for most of us. Fixed the blunders I made and integrated it. Opinions on proceeding forward?

@AIndoria - I have some concerns with how that config is set up. Setting up discussion here: #922

Abraxos · 2026-06-03T14:47:22Z

Is there anything I can do to help this get merged? The fact that I cannot ignore a specific code (188) is becoming a serious problem for me. I don't have any opinions on #922 , I just want to help get this done.

EDIT: I guess I have a slight preference for the config file?

kaysond · 2026-06-03T19:03:50Z

Is there anything I can do to help this get merged? The fact that I cannot ignore a specific code (188) is becoming a serious problem for me. I don't have any opinions on #922 , I just want to help get this done.

EDIT: I guess I have a slight preference for the config file?

If you're interested in contributing this I can spec out updates to the config file and how to implement support for the attribute overrides. It might make the most sense to just create a new PR.

Abraxos · 2026-06-03T19:13:53Z

Yes, I am interested in contributing to this. The only caveat to be aware of is that golang isn't my best language, so I will almost certainly be using Claude to help (though of course I will thoroughly test and review everything before submitting it for review here). As long as that's OK, yeah, I am happy to write a PR

kaysond · 2026-06-04T16:01:02Z

Yes, I am interested in contributing to this. The only caveat to be aware of is that golang isn't my best language, so I will almost certainly be using Claude to help (though of course I will thoroughly test and review everything before submitting it for review here). As long as that's OK, yeah, I am happy to write a PR

That's fine. I'll review and if so just need a lot of testing. I'll probably leave it in nightly for a bit too. I'll try to spec out the change in the next couple of days and will tag you when it's ready.

Abraxos · 2026-06-04T17:40:49Z

Yes, I am interested in contributing to this. The only caveat to be aware of is that golang isn't my best language, so I will almost certainly be using Claude to help (though of course I will thoroughly test and review everything before submitting it for review here). As long as that's OK, yeah, I am happy to write a PR

That's fine. I'll review and if so just need a lot of testing. I'll probably leave it in nightly for a bit too. I'll try to spec out the change in the next couple of days and will tag you when it's ready.

Sweet, I am looking forward to it!

AIndoria · 2026-06-05T10:44:21Z

I'll start re-looking into this as well. So far I've not because last few months have been exceptionally busy but I should have some time for next few weeks. @Abraxos ping me if you find a different/better way of doing this and maybe we can rebase it as @kaysond mentioned earlier.

AIndoria added 2 commits December 7, 2025 11:59

test: Add unit tests for SMART attribute override logic

4e3d5bf

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings December 7, 2025 19:15

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of AIndoria December 7, 2025 19:15 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Dec 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Jan 23, 2026

feat: SMART attribute override functionality (upstream #835) Starosdev/scrutiny#114

Closed

feat(backend): add SMART attribute overrides support (SCR-114) Starosdev/scrutiny#118

Merged

kaysond mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2026

Support transient SMART failures #375

Closed

This was referenced Feb 8, 2026

[BUG] SMART ID 4 (Start/Stop Count) shows spurious warning when start/stop count is low #385

Closed

[BUG] Hardware ECC Recovered incorrectly reported as disk failure #374

Closed

kaysond linked an issue Feb 13, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request

feat: Add SMART attribute override functionality #921

Closed

kaysond mentioned this pull request Jun 8, 2026

Add support for front/backend devices overrides #1022

Open

	sr.logger.Infof("SaveSmartAttributes called for wwn=%s", wwn)
	sr.logger.Debugf("SaveSmartAttributes called for wwn=%s", wwn)

	sr.logger.Infof("Loaded %d attribute overrides from config", len(overrides))
	sr.logger.Debugf("Loaded %d attribute overrides from config", len(overrides))

	sr.logger.Infof("Applying override to attribute %s: action=%s", attrKey, override.Action)
	sr.logger.Debugf("Applying override to attribute %s: action=%s", attrKey, override.Action)

		case "ignore":
		return setAttributeStatus(attr, pkg.AttributeStatusPassed, "Ignored by attribute override")

Uh oh!

Conversation

AIndoria commented Dec 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Reviewed changes

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Dec 7, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kaysond commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

AIndoria commented Feb 3, 2026

Uh oh!

kaysond commented Feb 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

AIndoria commented Feb 6, 2026

Uh oh!

kaysond commented Feb 13, 2026

Uh oh!

Abraxos commented Jun 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kaysond commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Abraxos commented Jun 3, 2026

Uh oh!

kaysond commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Abraxos commented Jun 4, 2026

Uh oh!

AIndoria commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

AIndoria commented Dec 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kaysond commented Feb 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Abraxos commented Jun 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading