Good catch, I could rewrite it for v2

If you provide a nightly image, I would be happy to test it for you.

Thanks in advance, it would sure be a huge help! Right now, I am still waiting for @kuskoman to finally merge my hot-reload PR 😮‍💨

I honestly can't wait to start working on it, I have the right mood and motivation to do it 😄

Done in #382

Chill, relax on your holidays ;)

We first have to provide a nightly image for that and merge the PR.
@kuskoman do you have time for that?

@pvogler Did you managed to check it? If it works, I could just close this issue heh 😅

@satk0 Looks like the direct port from version. As a workaround the possibility to disable the TLS verification is a good starting point and does work as expected. But to transform this exporter in a really secure one, it should be possible to specify a custom ca file provide to the exporter.
e.g. as config parameter
Logstash:
customer: "path to custom ca file"

If you think this would be a good option as well, we could also close this issue and open a new one, concentrating on the custom ca.

And sorry for the late reply. Got some different business to finish first.

Yeah, it is indeed a workaround. I see what you mean, for me it looks like a proper improvement. @kuskoman wdyt?

@pvogler me and kuskoman agreed on this idea, and I'd be working on it. Could you just let me know, is it about setting specifically root certificate authority (RootCA)?
I am not an expert in this field and your response would be really helpful, idk where to start with it hah

i feel like this got duplicated by #393
@satk0 please take a look on the other issue, some user already implemented it, but did not create a PR

@kuskoman You mean this? chanyongkit@3f7679a

This implements HTTP TLS but I think there is the need to specify custom root ca to tls.config for each logstash instance instead of merely using HttpInsecure var, wdyt?

yep, but i believe this needs some testing, you can copy the branch to your repo, so that the commit will have its original author

I will just rewrite it, I am not that git-savy 😛

Do we need this commit for v1, or should I implement it only for v2?

@satk0 @kuskoman
Just for clarification: #393 adds support for encrypting the exporter, so that Prometheus talks https with this exporter.

I want to talk TLS with the Logstash API. So 393 is not a duplicate
And for these calls I want to specify a RootCA-file. One file should be enough. Either all CAs can be put inside this file like the ca-bundle.crt e.g. on Redhat, or we simply start multiple exporters if different CAs are required.

And for me v2 would be sufficient.

Does this help in clarification?

Yeah, sure it helps, thanks for being so active ;)

I've already started working here #401 on encrypting the exporter, when I finish writing tests for it, I will start resolving this one so stay tuned 😸