From d9490abad60f5cfe71857a1f4a7fd7d8188ed05f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kibana Machine <42973632+kibanamachine@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:20:22 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] [8.x] fix flaky test with timestamp (#195681) (#195695)

# Backport

This will backport the following commits from `main` to `8.x`:
- [fix flaky test with timestamp
(#195681)](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/195681)

<!--- Backport version: 9.4.3 -->

### Questions ?
Please refer to the [Backport tool
documentation](https://github.com/sqren/backport)

<!--BACKPORT [{"author":{"name":"Paulo
Silva","email":"paulo.henrique@elastic.co"},"sourceCommit":{"committedDate":"2024-10-10T00:36:33Z","message":"fix
flaky test with timestamp (#195681)\n\n## Summary\r\n\r\nIt fixes the
flaky test raised on #195634 by adding the possibility to\r\npass the
timestamp to the function. That helps to eliminate flakiness,\r\nby
passing the same `currentTimestamp` to both the test and
the\r\nfunction. Also, it's a simpler approach that doesn't require
mocking\r\nglobal objects or using Jest's fake timers, keeping your
test\r\nstraightforward and easy to
understand.","sha":"b51ba0a27c852f967b922130d01ac7cf2ec11d64","branchLabelMapping":{"^v9.0.0$":"main","^v8.16.0$":"8.x","^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$":"$1.$2"}},"sourcePullRequest":{"labels":["release_note:skip","v9.0.0","Team:Cloud
Security","v8.16.0","backport:version"],"title":"Fix flaky Jest test on
generateVulnerabilitiesRuleQuery","number":195681,"url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/195681","mergeCommit":{"message":"fix
flaky test with timestamp (#195681)\n\n## Summary\r\n\r\nIt fixes the
flaky test raised on #195634 by adding the possibility to\r\npass the
timestamp to the function. That helps to eliminate flakiness,\r\nby
passing the same `currentTimestamp` to both the test and
the\r\nfunction. Also, it's a simpler approach that doesn't require
mocking\r\nglobal objects or using Jest's fake timers, keeping your
test\r\nstraightforward and easy to
understand.","sha":"b51ba0a27c852f967b922130d01ac7cf2ec11d64"}},"sourceBranch":"main","suggestedTargetBranches":["8.x"],"targetPullRequestStates":[{"branch":"main","label":"v9.0.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v9.0.0$","isSourceBranch":true,"state":"MERGED","url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/195681","number":195681,"mergeCommit":{"message":"fix
flaky test with timestamp (#195681)\n\n## Summary\r\n\r\nIt fixes the
flaky test raised on #195634 by adding the possibility to\r\npass the
timestamp to the function. That helps to eliminate flakiness,\r\nby
passing the same `currentTimestamp` to both the test and
the\r\nfunction. Also, it's a simpler approach that doesn't require
mocking\r\nglobal objects or using Jest's fake timers, keeping your
test\r\nstraightforward and easy to
understand.","sha":"b51ba0a27c852f967b922130d01ac7cf2ec11d64"}},{"branch":"8.x","label":"v8.16.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v8.16.0$","isSourceBranch":false,"state":"NOT_CREATED"}]}]
BACKPORT-->

Co-authored-by: Paulo Silva <paulo.henrique@elastic.co>
---
 .../create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.test.ts     | 2 +-
 .../utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.ts    | 9 +++++----
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.test.ts b/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.test.ts
index 209ec81168271..7dd0982cc58b5 100644
--- a/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.test.ts
+++ b/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.test.ts
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ describe('CreateDetectionRuleFromVulnerability', () => {
       } as Vulnerability;
       const currentTimestamp = new Date().toISOString();
 
-      const query = generateVulnerabilitiesRuleQuery(mockVulnerability);
+      const query = generateVulnerabilitiesRuleQuery(mockVulnerability, currentTimestamp);
       expect(query).toEqual(
         `vulnerability.id: "CVE-2024-00005" AND event.ingested >= "${currentTimestamp}"`
       );
diff --git a/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.ts b/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.ts
index b723c60f9ee3d..804e89fad61d8 100644
--- a/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.ts
+++ b/x-pack/plugins/cloud_security_posture/public/pages/vulnerabilities/utils/create_detection_rule_from_vulnerability.ts
@@ -53,10 +53,11 @@ export const getVulnerabilityRuleName = (vulnerability: Vulnerability) => {
   });
 };
 
-export const generateVulnerabilitiesRuleQuery = (vulnerability: Vulnerability) => {
-  const currentTimestamp = new Date().toISOString();
-
-  return `vulnerability.id: "${vulnerability.id}" AND event.ingested >= "${currentTimestamp}"`;
+export const generateVulnerabilitiesRuleQuery = (
+  vulnerability: Vulnerability,
+  startTimestamp = new Date().toISOString()
+) => {
+  return `vulnerability.id: "${vulnerability.id}" AND event.ingested >= "${startTimestamp}"`;
 };
 
 const CSP_RULE_TAG = 'Cloud Security';