Add welcome screen disabling to common page

[pheyos]

Summary

This PR adds logic to disable the welcome screen to the common_page which is already used in the x-pack security_page.

Background / history

Thanks @flash1293 for helping with the investigation and finding a working solution!

Some time ago functionality was added to disable the welcome screen in functional tests (#58371). But in recent cloud production tests a few test failures around a displayed welcome page occurred. An investigation revealed two issues:

1. Not all tests are using the x-pack security_page to login, but e.g. the login_page (former shield_page)
2. Some tests start with navigateToApp and rely on the loginIfPrompted, which doesn't always lead to a new login. But the local storage is still cleared between suites, so the welcome screen comes up again.

In terms of where to put additional disable logic, the first idea was to do it in the beforeTestSuite (similar to the storage clean in afterTestSuite). But that doesn't work at this stage:

Storage is disabled inside 'data:' URLs.

So we need a place where some page is already loaded but the login / initial navigation is not done yet. Although it's not ideal, the loginIfPrompted seems to be a place that works.

[pheyos]

@elasticmachine merge upstream

[elasticmachine]

merge conflict between base and head

[pheyos]

@elasticmachine merge upstream

[pheyos]

Thinking a bit more about it, I'm wondering, why we have the OSS login_page in addition to the x-pack security_page. I thought it's not possible to have security enabled on OSS, or did that change?
Anyway, I think it's not ideal to have login page handling in two different page objects.
What do you think?

[pheyos]

@elasticmachine merge upstream

[dmlemeshko]

Thinking a bit more about it, I'm wondering, why we have the OSS login_page in addition to the x-pack security_page. I thought it's not possible to have security enabled on OSS, or did that change?
Anyway, I think it's not ideal to have login page handling in two different page objects.
What do you think?

I think that PO is under OSS because we do run oss tests for trial license.

We recently discussed in QA sync that having several page objects is really confusing, I think @LeeDr is working on improvement.

[kibanamachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• continuous-integration/kibana-ci/pull-request
• Commit: 10376df

History

• 💚 Build #48621 succeeded 7605062
• 💚 Build #48568 succeeded 7ad9296
• 💚 Build #48274 succeeded 05ccb95

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