[EDR Workflows][‼️ v9.4 ‼️] Enable Endpoint exceptions move feature flag#260983
Conversation
65a7f1f to
e8931d6
Compare
|
Cloud deployment initiated, see credentials at: https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-deploy-cloud-from-pr/builds/904 |
|
Project deployed, see credentials at: https://buildkite.com/elastic/kibana-deploy-project-from-pr/builds/1138 |
e8931d6 to
59b5385
Compare
Files by Code Ownerelastic/security-defend-workflows, elastic/security-detection-engine, elastic/security-solution
elastic/security-defend-workflows, elastic/security-solution
elastic/security-detection-engine, elastic/security-detection-rule-management, elastic/security-engineering-productivity, elastic/security-threat-hunting
elastic/security-detection-engine, elastic/security-engineering-productivity
elastic/security-detection-engine, elastic/security-engineering-productivity, elastic/security-threat-hunting-investigations
elastic/security-detection-rule-management, elastic/security-solution
elastic/security-engineering-productivity
elastic/security-engineering-productivity, elastic/security-threat-hunting-investigations
elastic/security-solution
Owners to ping
|
| x-labels: [] | ||
| # TODO: When the feature flag `endpointExceptionsMovedUnderManagement` is enabled, remove empty `x-labels` and un-comment the line below. | ||
| # x-labels: [ ess, serverless ] | ||
| x-labels: [ ess, serverless ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Q: shouldn't these be added while when released in serverless, and not 9.4?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually, it did not cause any change when adding these labels and running the generate and bundle scripts based on the readme:
it seems these docs only make their way into the bundles, if they have neither an x-internal: true attribute, nor /internal/ in their paths:
so I think we're good, and didn't even need to hide this in the first place 👍
| cy.get(EXCEPTION_ITEM_VIEWER_CONTAINER).should('have.length', 1); | ||
| cy.get(EXCEPTION_CARD_ITEM_NAME).should('have.text', ITEM_NAME_EDIT); | ||
| cy.get(EXCEPTION_CARD_ITEM_CONDITIONS).contains('span', ADDITIONAL_ENTRY); | ||
| cy.get('[data-test-subj="endpointExceptionsListPage-card"]').should('have.length', 1); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT: Following best-practices, please, extract the locators to screens folder :)
agusruidiazgd
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM from @elastic/security-threat-hunting-investigations. Code review only
| beforeEach(() => { | ||
| cy.task('esArchiverUnload', { archiveName: 'endpoint_2' }); | ||
| cy.task('esArchiverLoad', { archiveName: 'endpoint_2' }); | ||
| cy.task('esArchiverLoad', { archiveName: 'endpoint' }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason why we are not unloading the loaded archive in the after hook?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is unloaded in the afterEach hook. after I changed the index name and the type from index to data stream, the tests failed with the following message:
CypressError: `cy.task('esArchiverUnload')` failed with the following error:
> index_not_found_exception
Root causes:
index_not_found_exception: no such index [logs-endpoint.alerts-default]
so it seems that while unloading indices is done by best effort, unloading data streams fails when not found. to avoid this, I just added exactly as many unload ops as many load ops we have.
is this expected by the way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I don't know, this is a thing we can probably ask to appex-qa team.
ashokaditya
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did code review only and looks good to ship. Cypress best practices comments should be addressed.
banderror
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, no rule management functionality affected
MadameSheema
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Security Engineering Productivity changes LGTM!
Thanks for tackling the comments :D
💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky
Failed CI StepsTest Failures
Metrics [docs]Async chunks
Page load bundle
History
|
…ature flag (elastic#260983) > [!CAUTION] > Must be retargeted to 9.4 branch as soon as it's cut. Serverless release will follow later. This PR enables the Security Solution feature flag `endpointExceptionsMovedUnderManagement` to: - hide Endpoint exceptions from Detections and Shared exception list pages, - instead, show Endpoint exceptions under Endpoint / Artifacts, - add an opt-in mechanism to allow users to opt-in to per-policy usage for Endpoint exceptions, - and add export/import functionality to all Endpoint artifacts And in order to do this, it: - adapts some of the tests, - deletes some obsolete ones, including fixtures, - removes Endpoint exception privilege condition for showing Shared exception list page (see [this comment](elastic#239634 (comment))) - enables API documentation (see [this comment](elastic#259598 (comment))) Check the PR satisfies following conditions. Reviewers should verify this PR satisfies this list as well. - [ ] [Documentation](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-documentation.html) was added for features that require explanation or tutorials - [x] [Unit or functional tests](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-tests.html) were updated or added to match the most common scenarios - --------- Co-authored-by: Konrad Szwarc <konrad.szwarc@elastic.co>
Caution
Must be retargeted to 9.4 branch as soon as it's cut. Serverless release will follow later.
Summary
This PR enables the Security Solution feature flag
endpointExceptionsMovedUnderManagementto:And in order to do this, it:
Checklist
Check the PR satisfies following conditions.
Reviewers should verify this PR satisfies this list as well.
release_note:*label is applied per the guidelinesRelease Notes
(Note: this is the same as in #263687. If one is updated, update the other one as well.)