[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors#263865
Conversation
| async () => { | ||
| const query = useQuery({ | ||
| queryKey: [...QUERY_KEY, featureId], | ||
| queryFn: async () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just changing to object signature which will be required in v5
| const NO_DEFAULT_CONNECTOR = 'NO_DEFAULT_CONNECTOR'; | ||
|
|
||
| const selectDefaultConnector = ({ connectors }: { connectors: InferenceConnector[] }) => { | ||
| const recommendedId = getFirstRecommendedConnectorId(connectors.map((c) => c.connectorId)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This path gets the InferenceConnector objects directly from InferenceServerStart.getConnectorList(). Am I correct in assuming these will not have the isRecommended prop? If that is the case then is it correct to just remove this logic that checks for a recommended connector or should we be doing something else here?
cc @pgayvallet
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that's right. We need to change our server-side logic to do the same as the browser-side, but the searchInferenceEndpoints plugin do not expose that API server-side at the moment, so let's consider that out of scope of the current PR. I'll adapt independently.
| const NO_DEFAULT_CONNECTOR = 'NO_DEFAULT_CONNECTOR'; | ||
|
|
||
| const selectDefaultConnector = ({ connectors }: { connectors: InferenceConnector[] }) => { | ||
| const recommendedId = getFirstRecommendedConnectorId(connectors.map((c) => c.connectorId)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that's right. We need to change our server-side logic to do the same as the browser-side, but the searchInferenceEndpoints plugin do not expose that API server-side at the moment, so let's consider that out of scope of the current PR. I'll adapt independently.
|
@elasticmachine merge upstream |
💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky
Failed CI StepsMetrics [docs]Module Count
Async chunks
Page load bundle
History
|
|
Starting backport for target branches: 9.4 https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/24747235002 |
💚 All backports created successfully
Note: Successful backport PRs will be merged automatically after passing CI. Questions ?Please refer to the Backport tool documentation |
# Backport This will backport the following commits from `main` to `9.4`: - [[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors (#263865)](#263865) <!--- Backport version: 9.6.6 --> ### Questions ? Please refer to the [Backport tool documentation](https://github.com/sorenlouv/backport) <!--BACKPORT [{"author":{"name":"Zachary Parikh","email":"zachary.parikh@elastic.co"},"sourceCommit":{"committedDate":"2026-04-21T21:25:18Z","message":"[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors (#263865)","sha":"c718d0253ebe60230eb87ffd8711e46344ccd682","branchLabelMapping":{"^v9.5.0$":"main","^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$":"$1.$2"}},"sourcePullRequest":{"labels":["release_note:skip","backport:version","v9.4.0","feature:agent-builder","v9.5.0"],"title":"[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors","number":263865,"url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/263865","mergeCommit":{"message":"[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors (#263865)","sha":"c718d0253ebe60230eb87ffd8711e46344ccd682"}},"sourceBranch":"main","suggestedTargetBranches":["9.4"],"targetPullRequestStates":[{"branch":"9.4","label":"v9.4.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$","isSourceBranch":false,"state":"NOT_CREATED"},{"branch":"main","label":"v9.5.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v9.5.0$","isSourceBranch":true,"state":"MERGED","url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/263865","number":263865,"mergeCommit":{"message":"[Agent Builder] Recommended Connectors (#263865)","sha":"c718d0253ebe60230eb87ffd8711e46344ccd682"}}]}] BACKPORT--> Co-authored-by: Zachary Parikh <zachary.parikh@elastic.co>
Summary
Removes the frontend logic that refers to a static list of connector ids to determine if a connector should be displayed as recommended. Instead now refers to the
isRecommendedprop that is added in #263843Checklist
Check the PR satisfies following conditions.
Reviewers should verify this PR satisfies this list as well.
release_note:breakinglabel should be applied in these situations.release_note:*label is applied per the guidelinesbackport:*labels.Identify risks
Does this PR introduce any risks? For example, consider risks like hard to test bugs, performance regression, potential of data loss.
Describe the risk, its severity, and mitigation for each identified risk. Invite stakeholders and evaluate how to proceed before merging.