Spine should record warning if it is not the same version as Cacti

[netniV]

Whilst we have made a change on Cacti's core to display a warning if the versions do not match. I believe that we should have Spine record a warning in the log file that the version is mismatched (with an option to suppress until the next version of DB or Spine).

[jpobeda]

@netniV what are the limitations on this regarding? Should we be able to run different versions? let's say cacti 1.1.37 and spine 1.1.35?

[netniV]

There are often releases where spine does not needed to change as the core DB structure does not alter. Spine is recompiled and released with the updated version number despite the lack of change.

However, I do know that packagers such as @paulgever will often suppress releasing a new version of s package if the source has not changed (aside from the version number). For example, there is no difference between Spine v1.1.37 or 1.1.38 as far as I recall.

For safety though, we introduced the safety check as far too often people not using packages update the sources and forget that they need to update spine.

[netniV]

One example I left out is that 1.2 changes things for polling in a big way so needs both updating

[cigamit]

Something important to put into the ChangeLogs for 1.2 for sure.

[bernisys]

Maybe it is helpful to add an internal value, from which version to which version a spine binary is still compatible to cacati's DB structure. The cacti version is in the DB itself, and this can be checked rather easily i believe.

This would give the users a bit of freedom to decide, which spine version they would want to run with cacti, as there are sometimes regressions and fixes.

if a version is not compatible any more, the spine should better exit with an error immediately, before anything gets broken.
But all other version differences should be just reported as a warning on start of spine.

[netniV]

@bernisys that sounds feasible. I would suggest creating an enhancement request for that. 👍

[bernisys]

Do i need to create one or was this already taken care of in the course of this ticket? :)
as cigamit had added the "enhancement" tag already before my comment ...