Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Security Solution] Incorrect field count in Rule Upgrade flyout #200286

Closed
Tracked by #201502
pborgonovi opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed
Tracked by #201502

[Security Solution] Incorrect field count in Rule Upgrade flyout #200286

pborgonovi opened this issue Nov 15, 2024 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
8.18 candidate bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience Feature:Prebuilt Detection Rules Security Solution Prebuilt Detection Rules area fixed impact:low Addressing this issue will have a low 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. v8.18.0

Comments

@pborgonovi
Copy link
Contributor

pborgonovi commented Nov 15, 2024

Related to: #200904

Summary

Describe the bug:

When reviewing rule updates in the Update Flyout, the conflict message incorrectly displays the total number of fields with update conflicts. The message consistently shows a count of Fields + 1, regardless of the actual number of conflicting fields.

Kibana/Elasticsearch Stack version:

8.x

Current branch: 8.x  
Latest commit: d0c9a2f1f52 - [8.x] [Stack Monitoring / Logs] Fix Stack Monitoring logs links (#200043) (#200227)  
Remote tracking: origin/8.x  
Status relative to remote: up to date (no pending commits)  

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Open the Rule Updates table.
  2. Select a rule with conflicting fields and click to review the update.
  3. Observe the Update Flyout conflict message at the top of the page.

Current behavior:
The conflict messages states:

  • "Upgrade has X fields"
  • “X of the fields have an update conflict, please review the suggested update being updating.”

Where X = Actual fields + 1.

Expected behavior:
The conflict message should accurately reflect the actual number of conflicting fields.

Screenshots

Image

Image

Image

@pborgonovi pborgonovi added bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience impact:low Addressing this issue will have a low level of impact on the quality/strength of our product. Team: SecuritySolution Security Solutions Team working on SIEM, Endpoint, Timeline, Resolver, etc. Team:Detection Rule Management Security Detection Rule Management Team Team:Detections and Resp Security Detection Response Team triage_needed labels Nov 15, 2024
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/security-solution (Team: SecuritySolution)

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/security-detection-rule-management (Team:Detection Rule Management)

@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/security-detections-response (Team:Detections and Resp)

@banderror
Copy link
Contributor

@pborgonovi This one should have been fixed by @maximpn in #201501

@pborgonovi
Copy link
Contributor Author

Retested with latest changes and it looks good:

Image Image Image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
8.18 candidate bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience Feature:Prebuilt Detection Rules Security Solution Prebuilt Detection Rules area fixed impact:low Addressing this issue will have a low 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. v8.18.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants