Default fleet policy removal

[lykkin]

What is the problem this PR solves?

Remove references to the default field on the policy; use a default policy id instead.

Checklist

• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have made corresponding change to the default configuration files
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added an entry in CHANGELOG.next.asciidoc or CHANGELOG-developer.next.asciidoc.

Related issues

Agent changes: elastic/beats#30256

Related discussion:
Closes elastic/beats#29774

[elasticmachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

• Start Time: 2022-03-29T15:24:35.502+0000

• Duration: 11 min 0 sec

Test stats 🧪

Test	Results
Failed	0
Passed	271
Skipped	0
Total	271

🤖 GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

• /test : Re-trigger the build.

[AndersonQ]

LGTM, just fix the lining issues. However I cannot access the impact of this change.

[mergify]

This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it @lykkin? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you can check out it locally. See documentation: https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/

git fetch upstream
git checkout -b policy-default-updates upstream/policy-default-updates
git merge upstream/main
git push upstream policy-default-updates

[lykkin]

Looks like some of the linting errors are in generated files, so I'm going to track those back to the generator to allow renaming rules of struct fields.

[lykkin]

/test

[lykkin]

finally, it seems the linter is satisfied

[lykkin]

/test

[ph]

Looking at this now, thanks for the changer in elastic/go-json-schema-generate#1

[ph]

Oh linters, so evil :(

@lykkin I am curious where these linters errors were raised in the github action or locally?
Looking at your commits, I believe this one is the required changes b06c48b I would have expected the github action to really complain on a subset.

[ph]

@lykkin The code here looks fine to me, I haven't approved yet because I want to make sure the other is approved and I can validate it.

[lykkin]

Oh linters, so evil :(

@lykkin I am curious where these linters errors were raised in the github action or locally? Looking at your commits, I believe this one is the required changes b06c48b I would have expected the github action to really complain on a subset.

The issue was in the generated code needing to be updated to the linter standards. the Id -> ID and Api -> API change on the model required a change in the generated names of all the fields, which propagated to other files. There is still one field (namely model.Agent.Id I believe) that didn't get hit by the transformation on the schema generation, but I think this is a good start.

[mergify]

This pull request is now in conflicts. Could you fix it @lykkin? 🙏
To fixup this pull request, you can check out it locally. See documentation: https://help.github.com/articles/checking-out-pull-requests-locally/

git fetch upstream
git checkout -b policy-default-updates upstream/policy-default-updates
git merge upstream/main
git push upstream policy-default-updates

[ph]

LGTM