[Security Solution] Replace PATCH logic with PUT when upgrading rules #180195
Assignees
Labels
8.16 candidate
bug
Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience
Feature:Prebuilt Detection Rules
Security Solution Prebuilt Detection Rules area
impact:medium
Addressing this issue will have a medium level of impact on the quality/strength of our product.
Team:Detection Rule Management
Security Detection Rule Management Team
Team:Detections and Resp
Security Detection Response Team
Team: SecuritySolution
Security Solutions Team working on SIEM, Endpoint, Timeline, Resolver, etc.
v8.16.0
Comments
jpdjere
added
bug
|
Pinging @elastic/security-detections-response (Team:Detections and Resp) |
|
Pinging @elastic/security-detection-rule-management (Team:Detection Rule Management) |
|
Pinging @elastic/security-solution (Team: SecuritySolution) |
banderror
changed the title
banderror
added
impact:medium
banderror
changed the title
11 tasks
kibanamachine
pushed a commit
to kibanamachine/kibana
that referenced
this issue
Oct 16, 2024
…1439) Fixes: elastic#166376 (main ticket) Fixes: elastic#186544 (handling of specific fields) Fixes: elastic#180195 (replace PATCH with PUT logic on rule upgrade) ## Summary - Enhances the `/upgrade/_perform` endpoint to upgrade rules in a way that works with prebuilt rules customized by users and resolve conflicts between user customizations and updates from Elastic. - Handles special fields under the hood (see below) - Replaces the update prebuilt rule logic to work with PUT instead of PATCH. ### Rough implementation plan - For each `upgradeableRule`, we attempt to build the payload necessary to pass to `upgradePrebuiltRules()`, which is of type `PrebuiltRuleAsset`. So we retrieve the field names from `FIELDS_PAYLOAD_BY_RULE_TYPE` and loop through them. - If any of those `field`s are non-upgreadable, (i.e. its value needs to be handled under the hood) we do so in `determineFieldUpgradeStatus`. - Otherwise, we continue to build a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` for each field, which will help us determine if that field needs to be set to the base, current, target version, OR if it needs to be calculated as a MERGED value, or it is passed in the request payload as a RESOLVED value. - Notice that we are iterating over "flat" (non-grouped) fields which are part of the `PrebuiltRuleAsset` schema. This means that mapping is necessary between these flat fields and the diffable (grouped) fields that are used in the API contract, part of `DiffableRule`. For example, if we try to determine the value for the `query` field, we will need to look up for its value in the `eql_query` field if the target rule is `eql` or in `esql_query` if the target rule is `esql`. All these mappings can be found in `diffable_rule_fields_mappings.ts`. - Once a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` has been retrieved for each field of the payload we are building, retrieve its actual value: either fetching it from the base, current or target versions of the rule, from the three way diff calculation, or retrieving it from the request payload if it resolved. - Do this for all upgreadable rules, and the pass the payload array into `upgradePrebuiltRules()`. - **IMPORTANT:** The upgrade prebuilt rules logic has been changed from PATCH to PUT. That means that if the next version of a rule removes a field, and the user updates to that target version, those fields will be undefined in the resulting rule. **Additional example:** a installs a rule, and creates a `timeline_id` for it rule by modifying it. If neither the next version (target version) still does not have a `timeline_id` field for it, and the user updates to that target version fully (without resolving the conflict), that field will not exist anymore in the resulting rule. ## Acceptance criteria - [x] Extend the contract of the API endpoint according to the [POC](elastic#144060): - [x] Add the ability to pick the `MERGED` version for rule upgrades. If the `MERGED` version is selected, the diffs are recalculated and the rule fields are updated to the result of the diff calculation. This is only possible if all field diffs return a `conflict` value of either `NO`. If any fields returns a value of `NON_SOLVABLE` or `SOLVABLE`, reject the request with an error specifying that there are conflicts, and that they must be resolved on a per-field basis. - [x] Calculate diffs inside this endpoint, when the value of `pick_version` is `MERGED`. - [x] Add the ability to specify rule field versions, to update specific fields to different `pick_versions`: `BASE' | 'CURRENT' | 'TARGET' | 'MERGED' | 'RESOLVED'` (See `FieldUpgradeRequest` in [PoC](elastic#144060) for details) ## Handling of special fields Specific fields are handled under the hood based on elastic#186544 See implementation in `x-pack/plugins/security_solution/server/lib/detection_engine/prebuilt_rules/api/perform_rule_upgrade/determine_field_upgrade_status.ts`, which imports fields to handle under the hood: - `DiffableFieldsToOmit` - `FieldsToUpdateToCurrentVersion` ## Edge cases - [x] If target version of rule has a **rule type change**, check that all `pick_version`, at all levels, match `TARGET`. Otherwise, create new error and add to ruleErrors array. - [x] if a rule has a specific `targetVersion.type` (for example, EQL) and the user includes in its `fields` object of the request payload any fields which do not match that rule type (in this case, for example, sending in `machine_learning_job_id` as part of `fields`), throw an error for that rule. - [x] Calculation of field diffs: what happens if some fields have a conflict value of `NON_SOLVABLE`: - [x] If the whole rule is being updated to `MERGED`, and **ANY** fields return with a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict, reject the whole update for that rule: create new error and add to ruleErrors array. - [x] **EXCEPTION** for case above: the whole rule is being updated to `MERGED`, and one or more of the fields return with a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict, BUT those same fields have a specific `pick_version` for them in the `fields` object which **ARE NOT** `MERGED`. No error should be reported in this case. - [x] The whole rule is being updated to any `pick_version` other than MERGED, but any specific field in the `fields` object is set to upgrade to `MERGED`, and the diff for that fields returns a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict. In that case, create new error and add to ruleErrors array. ### TODO - [[Security Solution] Add InvestigationFields and AlertSuppression fields to the upgrade workflow [elastic#190597]](elastic#190597): InvestigationFields is already working, but AlertSuppression is still currently handled under the hood to update to current version. ### For maintainers - [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled appropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process) --------- Co-authored-by: Maxim Palenov <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 7c38873)
kibanamachine
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 16, 2024
) (#196471) # Backport This will backport the following commits from `main` to `8.x`: - [[Security Solution] Extend upgrade perform endpoint logic (#191439)](#191439) <!--- Backport version: 9.4.3 --> ### Questions ? Please refer to the [Backport tool documentation](https://github.com/sqren/backport) <!--BACKPORT [{"author":{"name":"Juan Pablo Djeredjian","email":"[email protected]"},"sourceCommit":{"committedDate":"2024-10-16T01:51:25Z","message":"[Security Solution] Extend upgrade perform endpoint logic (#191439)\n\nFixes: #166376 (main ticket)\r\nFixes: #186544 (handling of\r\nspecific fields)\r\nFixes: #180195 (replace PATCH\r\nwith PUT logic on rule upgrade)\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n- Enhances the `/upgrade/_perform` endpoint to upgrade rules in a way\r\nthat works with prebuilt rules customized by users and resolve conflicts\r\nbetween user customizations and updates from Elastic.\r\n- Handles special fields under the hood (see below)\r\n- Replaces the update prebuilt rule logic to work with PUT instead of\r\nPATCH.\r\n\r\n### Rough implementation plan\r\n- For each `upgradeableRule`, we attempt to build the payload necessary\r\nto pass to `upgradePrebuiltRules()`, which is of type\r\n`PrebuiltRuleAsset`. So we retrieve the field names from\r\n`FIELDS_PAYLOAD_BY_RULE_TYPE` and loop through them.\r\n- If any of those `field`s are non-upgreadable, (i.e. its value needs to\r\nbe handled under the hood) we do so in `determineFieldUpgradeStatus`.\r\n- Otherwise, we continue to build a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` for each\r\nfield, which will help us determine if that field needs to be set to the\r\nbase, current, target version, OR if it needs to be calculated as a\r\nMERGED value, or it is passed in the request payload as a RESOLVED\r\nvalue.\r\n- Notice that we are iterating over \"flat\" (non-grouped) fields which\r\nare part of the `PrebuiltRuleAsset` schema. This means that mapping is\r\nnecessary between these flat fields and the diffable (grouped) fields\r\nthat are used in the API contract, part of `DiffableRule`. For example,\r\nif we try to determine the value for the `query` field, we will need to\r\nlook up for its value in the `eql_query` field if the target rule is\r\n`eql` or in `esql_query` if the target rule is `esql`. All these\r\nmappings can be found in `diffable_rule_fields_mappings.ts`.\r\n- Once a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` has been retrieved for each field of\r\nthe payload we are building, retrieve its actual value: either fetching\r\nit from the base, current or target versions of the rule, from the three\r\nway diff calculation, or retrieving it from the request payload if it\r\nresolved.\r\n- Do this for all upgreadable rules, and the pass the payload array into\r\n`upgradePrebuiltRules()`.\r\n- **IMPORTANT:** The upgrade prebuilt rules logic has been changed from\r\nPATCH to PUT. That means that if the next version of a rule removes a\r\nfield, and the user updates to that target version, those fields will be\r\nundefined in the resulting rule. **Additional example:** a installs a\r\nrule, and creates a `timeline_id` for it rule by modifying it. If\r\nneither the next version (target version) still does not have a\r\n`timeline_id` field for it, and the user updates to that target version\r\nfully (without resolving the conflict), that field will not exist\r\nanymore in the resulting rule.\r\n\r\n## Acceptance criteria\r\n\r\n- [x] Extend the contract of the API endpoint according to the\r\n[POC](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/144060):\r\n- [x] Add the ability to pick the `MERGED` version for rule upgrades. If\r\nthe `MERGED` version is selected, the diffs are recalculated and the\r\nrule fields are updated to the result of the diff calculation. This is\r\nonly possible if all field diffs return a `conflict` value of either\r\n`NO`. If any fields returns a value of `NON_SOLVABLE` or `SOLVABLE`,\r\nreject the request with an error specifying that there are conflicts,\r\nand that they must be resolved on a per-field basis.\r\n- [x] Calculate diffs inside this endpoint, when the value of\r\n`pick_version` is `MERGED`.\r\n- [x] Add the ability to specify rule field versions, to update specific\r\nfields to different `pick_versions`: `BASE' | 'CURRENT' | 'TARGET' |\r\n'MERGED' | 'RESOLVED'` (See `FieldUpgradeRequest` in\r\n[PoC](#144060) for details)\r\n\r\n## Handling of special fields\r\n\r\nSpecific fields are handled under the hood based on\r\nhttps://github.com//issues/186544\r\n\r\nSee implementation in\r\n`x-pack/plugins/security_solution/server/lib/detection_engine/prebuilt_rules/api/perform_rule_upgrade/determine_field_upgrade_status.ts`,\r\nwhich imports fields to handle under the hood:\r\n- `DiffableFieldsToOmit`\r\n- `FieldsToUpdateToCurrentVersion`\r\n\r\n## Edge cases\r\n\r\n- [x] If target version of rule has a **rule type change**, check that\r\nall `pick_version`, at all levels, match `TARGET`. Otherwise, create new\r\nerror and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] if a rule has a specific `targetVersion.type` (for example, EQL)\r\nand the user includes in its `fields` object of the request payload any\r\nfields which do not match that rule type (in this case, for example,\r\nsending in `machine_learning_job_id` as part of `fields`), throw an\r\nerror for that rule.\r\n- [x] Calculation of field diffs: what happens if some fields have a\r\nconflict value of `NON_SOLVABLE`:\r\n- [x] If the whole rule is being updated to `MERGED`, and **ANY** fields\r\nreturn with a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict, reject the whole update for that\r\nrule: create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] **EXCEPTION** for case above: the whole rule is being updated to\r\n`MERGED`, and one or more of the fields return with a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict, BUT those same fields have a specific `pick_version` for them\r\nin the `fields` object which **ARE NOT** `MERGED`. No error should be\r\nreported in this case.\r\n- [x] The whole rule is being updated to any `pick_version` other than\r\nMERGED, but any specific field in the `fields` object is set to upgrade\r\nto `MERGED`, and the diff for that fields returns a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict. In that case, create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n\r\n### TODO\r\n\r\n- [[Security Solution] Add InvestigationFields and AlertSuppression\r\nfields to the upgrade workflow\r\n[#190597]](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/issues/190597):\r\nInvestigationFields is already working, but AlertSuppression is still\r\ncurrently handled under the hood to update to current version.\r\n\r\n\r\n### For maintainers\r\n\r\n- [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled\r\nappropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process)\r\n\r\n---------\r\n\r\nCo-authored-by: Maxim Palenov <[email protected]>","sha":"7c3887309cec54cc21e1abf8a2522afa49147712","branchLabelMapping":{"^v9.0.0$":"main","^v8.16.0$":"8.x","^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$":"$1.$2"}},"sourcePullRequest":{"labels":["release_note:enhancement","Team:Fleet","v9.0.0","Team:Detections and Resp","Team: SecuritySolution","Team:Detection Rule Management","Feature:Prebuilt Detection Rules","backport:prev-minor","v8.16.0"],"title":"[Security Solution] Extend upgrade perform endpoint logic","number":191439,"url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/191439","mergeCommit":{"message":"[Security Solution] Extend upgrade perform endpoint logic (#191439)\n\nFixes: #166376 (main ticket)\r\nFixes: #186544 (handling of\r\nspecific fields)\r\nFixes: #180195 (replace PATCH\r\nwith PUT logic on rule upgrade)\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n- Enhances the `/upgrade/_perform` endpoint to upgrade rules in a way\r\nthat works with prebuilt rules customized by users and resolve conflicts\r\nbetween user customizations and updates from Elastic.\r\n- Handles special fields under the hood (see below)\r\n- Replaces the update prebuilt rule logic to work with PUT instead of\r\nPATCH.\r\n\r\n### Rough implementation plan\r\n- For each `upgradeableRule`, we attempt to build the payload necessary\r\nto pass to `upgradePrebuiltRules()`, which is of type\r\n`PrebuiltRuleAsset`. So we retrieve the field names from\r\n`FIELDS_PAYLOAD_BY_RULE_TYPE` and loop through them.\r\n- If any of those `field`s are non-upgreadable, (i.e. its value needs to\r\nbe handled under the hood) we do so in `determineFieldUpgradeStatus`.\r\n- Otherwise, we continue to build a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` for each\r\nfield, which will help us determine if that field needs to be set to the\r\nbase, current, target version, OR if it needs to be calculated as a\r\nMERGED value, or it is passed in the request payload as a RESOLVED\r\nvalue.\r\n- Notice that we are iterating over \"flat\" (non-grouped) fields which\r\nare part of the `PrebuiltRuleAsset` schema. This means that mapping is\r\nnecessary between these flat fields and the diffable (grouped) fields\r\nthat are used in the API contract, part of `DiffableRule`. For example,\r\nif we try to determine the value for the `query` field, we will need to\r\nlook up for its value in the `eql_query` field if the target rule is\r\n`eql` or in `esql_query` if the target rule is `esql`. All these\r\nmappings can be found in `diffable_rule_fields_mappings.ts`.\r\n- Once a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` has been retrieved for each field of\r\nthe payload we are building, retrieve its actual value: either fetching\r\nit from the base, current or target versions of the rule, from the three\r\nway diff calculation, or retrieving it from the request payload if it\r\nresolved.\r\n- Do this for all upgreadable rules, and the pass the payload array into\r\n`upgradePrebuiltRules()`.\r\n- **IMPORTANT:** The upgrade prebuilt rules logic has been changed from\r\nPATCH to PUT. That means that if the next version of a rule removes a\r\nfield, and the user updates to that target version, those fields will be\r\nundefined in the resulting rule. **Additional example:** a installs a\r\nrule, and creates a `timeline_id` for it rule by modifying it. If\r\nneither the next version (target version) still does not have a\r\n`timeline_id` field for it, and the user updates to that target version\r\nfully (without resolving the conflict), that field will not exist\r\nanymore in the resulting rule.\r\n\r\n## Acceptance criteria\r\n\r\n- [x] Extend the contract of the API endpoint according to the\r\n[POC](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/144060):\r\n- [x] Add the ability to pick the `MERGED` version for rule upgrades. If\r\nthe `MERGED` version is selected, the diffs are recalculated and the\r\nrule fields are updated to the result of the diff calculation. This is\r\nonly possible if all field diffs return a `conflict` value of either\r\n`NO`. If any fields returns a value of `NON_SOLVABLE` or `SOLVABLE`,\r\nreject the request with an error specifying that there are conflicts,\r\nand that they must be resolved on a per-field basis.\r\n- [x] Calculate diffs inside this endpoint, when the value of\r\n`pick_version` is `MERGED`.\r\n- [x] Add the ability to specify rule field versions, to update specific\r\nfields to different `pick_versions`: `BASE' | 'CURRENT' | 'TARGET' |\r\n'MERGED' | 'RESOLVED'` (See `FieldUpgradeRequest` in\r\n[PoC](#144060) for details)\r\n\r\n## Handling of special fields\r\n\r\nSpecific fields are handled under the hood based on\r\nhttps://github.com//issues/186544\r\n\r\nSee implementation in\r\n`x-pack/plugins/security_solution/server/lib/detection_engine/prebuilt_rules/api/perform_rule_upgrade/determine_field_upgrade_status.ts`,\r\nwhich imports fields to handle under the hood:\r\n- `DiffableFieldsToOmit`\r\n- `FieldsToUpdateToCurrentVersion`\r\n\r\n## Edge cases\r\n\r\n- [x] If target version of rule has a **rule type change**, check that\r\nall `pick_version`, at all levels, match `TARGET`. Otherwise, create new\r\nerror and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] if a rule has a specific `targetVersion.type` (for example, EQL)\r\nand the user includes in its `fields` object of the request payload any\r\nfields which do not match that rule type (in this case, for example,\r\nsending in `machine_learning_job_id` as part of `fields`), throw an\r\nerror for that rule.\r\n- [x] Calculation of field diffs: what happens if some fields have a\r\nconflict value of `NON_SOLVABLE`:\r\n- [x] If the whole rule is being updated to `MERGED`, and **ANY** fields\r\nreturn with a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict, reject the whole update for that\r\nrule: create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] **EXCEPTION** for case above: the whole rule is being updated to\r\n`MERGED`, and one or more of the fields return with a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict, BUT those same fields have a specific `pick_version` for them\r\nin the `fields` object which **ARE NOT** `MERGED`. No error should be\r\nreported in this case.\r\n- [x] The whole rule is being updated to any `pick_version` other than\r\nMERGED, but any specific field in the `fields` object is set to upgrade\r\nto `MERGED`, and the diff for that fields returns a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict. In that case, create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n\r\n### TODO\r\n\r\n- [[Security Solution] Add InvestigationFields and AlertSuppression\r\nfields to the upgrade workflow\r\n[#190597]](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/issues/190597):\r\nInvestigationFields is already working, but AlertSuppression is still\r\ncurrently handled under the hood to update to current version.\r\n\r\n\r\n### For maintainers\r\n\r\n- [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled\r\nappropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process)\r\n\r\n---------\r\n\r\nCo-authored-by: Maxim Palenov <[email protected]>","sha":"7c3887309cec54cc21e1abf8a2522afa49147712"}},"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/191439","number":191439,"mergeCommit":{"message":"[Security Solution] Extend upgrade perform endpoint logic (#191439)\n\nFixes: #166376 (main ticket)\r\nFixes: #186544 (handling of\r\nspecific fields)\r\nFixes: #180195 (replace PATCH\r\nwith PUT logic on rule upgrade)\r\n\r\n## Summary\r\n\r\n- Enhances the `/upgrade/_perform` endpoint to upgrade rules in a way\r\nthat works with prebuilt rules customized by users and resolve conflicts\r\nbetween user customizations and updates from Elastic.\r\n- Handles special fields under the hood (see below)\r\n- Replaces the update prebuilt rule logic to work with PUT instead of\r\nPATCH.\r\n\r\n### Rough implementation plan\r\n- For each `upgradeableRule`, we attempt to build the payload necessary\r\nto pass to `upgradePrebuiltRules()`, which is of type\r\n`PrebuiltRuleAsset`. So we retrieve the field names from\r\n`FIELDS_PAYLOAD_BY_RULE_TYPE` and loop through them.\r\n- If any of those `field`s are non-upgreadable, (i.e. its value needs to\r\nbe handled under the hood) we do so in `determineFieldUpgradeStatus`.\r\n- Otherwise, we continue to build a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` for each\r\nfield, which will help us determine if that field needs to be set to the\r\nbase, current, target version, OR if it needs to be calculated as a\r\nMERGED value, or it is passed in the request payload as a RESOLVED\r\nvalue.\r\n- Notice that we are iterating over \"flat\" (non-grouped) fields which\r\nare part of the `PrebuiltRuleAsset` schema. This means that mapping is\r\nnecessary between these flat fields and the diffable (grouped) fields\r\nthat are used in the API contract, part of `DiffableRule`. For example,\r\nif we try to determine the value for the `query` field, we will need to\r\nlook up for its value in the `eql_query` field if the target rule is\r\n`eql` or in `esql_query` if the target rule is `esql`. All these\r\nmappings can be found in `diffable_rule_fields_mappings.ts`.\r\n- Once a `FieldUpgradeSpecifier` has been retrieved for each field of\r\nthe payload we are building, retrieve its actual value: either fetching\r\nit from the base, current or target versions of the rule, from the three\r\nway diff calculation, or retrieving it from the request payload if it\r\nresolved.\r\n- Do this for all upgreadable rules, and the pass the payload array into\r\n`upgradePrebuiltRules()`.\r\n- **IMPORTANT:** The upgrade prebuilt rules logic has been changed from\r\nPATCH to PUT. That means that if the next version of a rule removes a\r\nfield, and the user updates to that target version, those fields will be\r\nundefined in the resulting rule. **Additional example:** a installs a\r\nrule, and creates a `timeline_id` for it rule by modifying it. If\r\nneither the next version (target version) still does not have a\r\n`timeline_id` field for it, and the user updates to that target version\r\nfully (without resolving the conflict), that field will not exist\r\nanymore in the resulting rule.\r\n\r\n## Acceptance criteria\r\n\r\n- [x] Extend the contract of the API endpoint according to the\r\n[POC](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/144060):\r\n- [x] Add the ability to pick the `MERGED` version for rule upgrades. If\r\nthe `MERGED` version is selected, the diffs are recalculated and the\r\nrule fields are updated to the result of the diff calculation. This is\r\nonly possible if all field diffs return a `conflict` value of either\r\n`NO`. If any fields returns a value of `NON_SOLVABLE` or `SOLVABLE`,\r\nreject the request with an error specifying that there are conflicts,\r\nand that they must be resolved on a per-field basis.\r\n- [x] Calculate diffs inside this endpoint, when the value of\r\n`pick_version` is `MERGED`.\r\n- [x] Add the ability to specify rule field versions, to update specific\r\nfields to different `pick_versions`: `BASE' | 'CURRENT' | 'TARGET' |\r\n'MERGED' | 'RESOLVED'` (See `FieldUpgradeRequest` in\r\n[PoC](#144060) for details)\r\n\r\n## Handling of special fields\r\n\r\nSpecific fields are handled under the hood based on\r\nhttps://github.com//issues/186544\r\n\r\nSee implementation in\r\n`x-pack/plugins/security_solution/server/lib/detection_engine/prebuilt_rules/api/perform_rule_upgrade/determine_field_upgrade_status.ts`,\r\nwhich imports fields to handle under the hood:\r\n- `DiffableFieldsToOmit`\r\n- `FieldsToUpdateToCurrentVersion`\r\n\r\n## Edge cases\r\n\r\n- [x] If target version of rule has a **rule type change**, check that\r\nall `pick_version`, at all levels, match `TARGET`. Otherwise, create new\r\nerror and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] if a rule has a specific `targetVersion.type` (for example, EQL)\r\nand the user includes in its `fields` object of the request payload any\r\nfields which do not match that rule type (in this case, for example,\r\nsending in `machine_learning_job_id` as part of `fields`), throw an\r\nerror for that rule.\r\n- [x] Calculation of field diffs: what happens if some fields have a\r\nconflict value of `NON_SOLVABLE`:\r\n- [x] If the whole rule is being updated to `MERGED`, and **ANY** fields\r\nreturn with a `NON_SOLVABLE` conflict, reject the whole update for that\r\nrule: create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n- [x] **EXCEPTION** for case above: the whole rule is being updated to\r\n`MERGED`, and one or more of the fields return with a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict, BUT those same fields have a specific `pick_version` for them\r\nin the `fields` object which **ARE NOT** `MERGED`. No error should be\r\nreported in this case.\r\n- [x] The whole rule is being updated to any `pick_version` other than\r\nMERGED, but any specific field in the `fields` object is set to upgrade\r\nto `MERGED`, and the diff for that fields returns a `NON_SOLVABLE`\r\nconflict. In that case, create new error and add to ruleErrors array.\r\n\r\n### TODO\r\n\r\n- [[Security Solution] Add InvestigationFields and AlertSuppression\r\nfields to the upgrade workflow\r\n[#190597]](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/issues/190597):\r\nInvestigationFields is already working, but AlertSuppression is still\r\ncurrently handled under the hood to update to current version.\r\n\r\n\r\n### For maintainers\r\n\r\n- [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled\r\nappropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process)\r\n\r\n---------\r\n\r\nCo-authored-by: Maxim Palenov <[email protected]>","sha":"7c3887309cec54cc21e1abf8a2522afa49147712"}},{"branch":"8.x","label":"v8.16.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v8.16.0$","isSourceBranch":false,"state":"NOT_CREATED"}]}] BACKPORT--> Co-authored-by: Juan Pablo Djeredjian <[email protected]>
This was referenced Nov 23, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Epics: https://github.com/elastic/security-team/issues/1974 (internal), #174168
Summary
Replace PATCH logic with PUT when upgrading rules in
x-pack/plugins/security_solution/server/lib/detection_engine/rule_management/logic/detection_rules_client/methods/upgrade_prebuilt_rule.ts, update:to be:
This will prevent us from introducing a bug once we ship prebuilt rules customization. The bug would be: if Elastic reverted a rule field to become empty/undefined in the next target version, the PATCH call would not update this field as expected, because PATCH cannot reset a field to
undefined. The PUT call doesn't have this flaw. Moreover, in an upgrade workflow all rule fields are known beforehand, so PUT is the right semantics for it. We've already changed PATCH to PUT in the import workflow, which is very similar to upgrade.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: