[Defend for containers] cloud_defend plugin UI boilerplate

[mitodrummer]

Summary

This PR aims to create a footprint in the "security_solution" manage page for the new cloud_defend integration (and kibana plugin). Most of the changes are taken from the cloud_security_posture plugin architecture. The following additions have been made:

• "Cloud security posture" category in manage page now includes a link to a new "Defend for containers" policies page (I originally created a new category for cloud_defend, but having two full categories with a single link is kind of a waste of real estate).
• Cloud defend page wrapper to handle empty states, and the flows for when the integration is not yet installed, or user doesn't have cloud enterprise subscription.
• Basic policies page to serve as a baseline for future detail around each cloud_defend integration (e.g selector / response / alert counts).
• Application router and sub plugin tie'ins to security_solution.

Apologies in advance for the large PR :)

Screenshots

Manage link

Policies page

Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

• Any text added follows EUI's writing guidelines, uses sentence case text and includes i18n support
• Unit or functional tests were updated or added to match the most common scenarios
• Any UI touched in this PR is usable by keyboard only (learn more about keyboard accessibility)
• Any UI touched in this PR does not create any new axe failures (run axe in browser: FF, Chrome)
• This renders correctly on smaller devices using a responsive layout. (You can test this in your browser)
• This was checked for cross-browser compatibility

[JordanSh]

Changes in cloud security posture LGTM 👌

[Tacklebox]

LGTM 👍

[jamster10]

Code looks good for explore. @semd, you may want to peak at it too though

[semd]

@mitodrummer The implementation overall looks great!
I wrote a couple of comments.
Also, when testing it I am seeing this error when I do not have the package installed:

And the server throws:

[ERROR][plugins.cloudDefend] PackageNotFoundError: [cloud_defend] package not found in registry
    at fetchFindLatestPackageOrThrow (index.ts:150:11)
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:96:5)
    at async Promise.all (index 2)
    at getCloudDefendStatus (status.ts:110:7)
    at status.ts:183:24
    at Router.handle (router.ts:192:30)
    at handler (router.ts:147:13)
    at exports.Manager.execute .
...

Is there any onboarding screen? Otherwise, probably we should check if cloud_defend is enabled and hide all links if not.

[mitodrummer]

@mitodrummer The implementation overall looks great! I wrote a couple of comments. Also, when testing it I am seeing this error when I do not have the package installed:

And the server throws:

[ERROR][plugins.cloudDefend] PackageNotFoundError: [cloud_defend] package not found in registry
    at fetchFindLatestPackageOrThrow (index.ts:150:11)
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:96:5)
    at async Promise.all (index 2)
    at getCloudDefendStatus (status.ts:110:7)
    at status.ts:183:24
    at Router.handle (router.ts:192:30)
    at handler (router.ts:147:13)
    at exports.Manager.execute .
...

Is there any onboarding screen? Otherwise, probably we should check if cloud_defend is enabled and hide all links if not.

Yea, next step is to sort out some stuff with our integration and getting an updated version to EPR. That should fix the issue you are seeing. This is happening since our package is "beta" (e.g version < 1.0.0). I have updates queued to push out our first 1.0.0 version this week, so should be resolved soon.

[kibana-ci]

💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: d196205

Failed CI Steps

• Security Solution Tests #2

Test Failures

• [job] [logs] Security Solution Tests #2 / Rules selection should correctly update the selection label when rules are bulk selected and then unselected via the table select all checkbox

Metrics [docs]

Module Count

Fewer modules leads to a faster build time

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	59	108	+49
securitySolution	3723	3727	+4
total			+53

Public APIs missing comments

Total count of every public API that lacks a comment. Target amount is 0. Run node scripts/build_api_docs --plugin [yourplugin] --stats comments for more detailed information.

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	2	4	+2

Async chunks

Total size of all lazy-loaded chunks that will be downloaded as the user navigates the app

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	226.7KB	245.9KB	+19.2KB
securitySolution	15.7MB	15.7MB	+3.0KB
total			+22.2KB

Public APIs missing exports

Total count of every type that is part of your API that should be exported but is not. This will cause broken links in the API documentation system. Target amount is 0. Run node scripts/build_api_docs --plugin [yourplugin] --stats exports for more detailed information.

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	0	1	+1

Page load bundle

Size of the bundles that are downloaded on every page load. Target size is below 100kb

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	3.6KB	8.5KB	+4.9KB
securitySolution	53.2KB	53.5KB	+310.0B
total			+5.2KB

Unknown metric groups

API count

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	2	15	+13

async chunk count

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	3	4	+1

ESLint disabled in files

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	0	1	+1

ESLint disabled line counts

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	4	6	+2
securitySolution	428	430	+2
total			+4

Total ESLint disabled count

id	before	after	diff
cloudDefend	4	7	+3
securitySolution	506	508	+2
total			+5

History

• 💔 Build #111155 failed 7b7c606
• 💔 Build #111140 failed fe3ec04
• 💚 Build #110922 succeeded ac60975
• 💔 Build #110900 failed 9c54ebc
• 💔 Build #110879 failed 7e67cc9
• 💔 Build #110816 failed 6a867c0

To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with:
@elasticmachine merge upstream

[semd]

@mitodrummer

Yea, next step is to sort out some stuff with our integration and getting an updated version to EPR. That should fix the issue you are seeing. This is happening since our package is "beta" (e.g version < 1.0.0). I have updates queued to push out our first 1.0.0 version this week, so should be resolved soon

Okay sounds good, but the question is:
Will there be any situation in which we want to hide the links to cloud_defend? like not having the package installed or missing the license/permission to see the page?

[mitodrummer]

@mitodrummer

Yea, next step is to sort out some stuff with our integration and getting an updated version to EPR. That should fix the issue you are seeing. This is happening since our package is "beta" (e.g version < 1.0.0). I have updates queued to push out our first 1.0.0 version this week, so should be resolved soon

Okay sounds good, but the question is: Will there be any situation in which we want to hide the links to cloud_defend? like not having the package installed or missing the license/permission to see the page?

This is handled now by the cloud_defend_page component. It will show empty state with button to install integration if not installed, and also handle license checks.

[semd]

@mitodrummer

Yea, next step is to sort out some stuff with our integration and getting an updated version to EPR. That should fix the issue you are seeing. This is happening since our package is "beta" (e.g version < 1.0.0). I have updates queued to push out our first 1.0.0 version this week, so should be resolved soon

Okay sounds good, but the question is: Will there be any situation in which we want to hide the links to cloud_defend? like not having the package installed or missing the license/permission to see the page?

This is handled now by the cloud_defend_page component. It will show empty state with button to install integration if not installed, and also handle license checks.

Great! Just FYI, if we ever have to make a cloud_defend link inaccessible under some condition, it has to be done here:

kibana/x-pack/plugins/security_solution/public/management/links.ts

Line 239 in 6dcdabc

export const getManagementFilteredLinks = async (

Thanks!