[APM] Fix comparison option showing in individual transaction page

[qn895]

Summary

This PR fixes Expected bounds showing as a comparison option in the individual transaction page. Currently, it will show the bounds of the overall job, and not of the individual transaction, which is incorrect.

Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

• Any text added follows EUI's writing guidelines, uses sentence case text and includes i18n support
• Documentation was added for features that require explanation or tutorials
• Unit or functional tests were updated or added to match the most common scenarios
• Any UI touched in this PR is usable by keyboard only (learn more about keyboard accessibility)
• Any UI touched in this PR does not create any new axe failures (run axe in browser: FF, Chrome)
• If a plugin configuration key changed, check if it needs to be allowlisted in the cloud and added to the docker list
• This renders correctly on smaller devices using a responsive layout. (You can test this in your browser)
• This was checked for cross-browser compatibility

Risk Matrix

Delete this section if it is not applicable to this PR.

Before closing this PR, invite QA, stakeholders, and other developers to identify risks that should be tested prior to the change/feature release.

When forming the risk matrix, consider some of the following examples and how they may potentially impact the change:

Risk	Probability	Severity	Mitigation/Notes
Multiple Spaces—unexpected behavior in non-default Kibana Space.	Low	High	Integration tests will verify that all features are still supported in non-default Kibana Space and when user switches between spaces.
Multiple nodes—Elasticsearch polling might have race conditions when multiple Kibana nodes are polling for the same tasks.	High	Low	Tasks are idempotent, so executing them multiple times will not result in logical error, but will degrade performance. To test for this case we add plenty of unit tests around this logic and document manual testing procedure.
Code should gracefully handle cases when feature X or plugin Y are disabled.	Medium	High	Unit tests will verify that any feature flag or plugin combination still results in our service operational.
See more potential risk examples

For maintainers

• This was checked for breaking API changes and was labeled appropriately

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/ml-ui (:ml)

[sorenlouv]

Remind me: why did the previous check match /services/{serviceName}/transactions/view? The check only refers to /services/{serviceName}/overview and /services/{serviceName}/transactions.

(I don't completely recall how getRoutesToMatch work)

[sorenlouv]

Btw. can you add a test for this in https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/fe190722c5352cea45947964b15670f955760fc8/x-pack/plugins/apm/public/components/shared/time_comparison/index.test.tsx ?

[qn895]

This is because matchingRoutes.map(r => r.path) returns the following:

[
    "/",
    "/services/{serviceName}",
    "/services/{serviceName}/transactions",
    "/services/{serviceName}/transactions/view"
]

for the following link app/apm/services/frontend/transactions/view?...

[qn895]

Added tests here 3f37787 (#155915)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/apm-ui (Team:APM)

[sorenlouv]

lgtm. Just one clarifying question

[sorenlouv]

Thanks for adding these tests! One nit is that I find them a little hard to read, in the sense that they contain a lot of boilerplate/implementation details. Both in the setup and in the assertions.

This might be too simplified but it would be great if we can get something like this instead:

  it("shows expected bounds only for /overview and /transaction pages", () => {
    expect(
      hasExpectedBoundsOptions({ url: "/services/frontend/overview" })
    ).toBe(true);

    expect(
      hasExpectedBoundsOptions({ url: "/services/frontend/transactions" })
    ).toBe(true);

    expect(
      hasExpectedBoundsOptions({ url: "/services/frontend/dependencies" })
    ).toBe(false);

    expect(
      hasExpectedBoundsOptions({ url: "/services/frontend/transactions/view" })
    ).toBe(false);
  });

  it("does not show option for expected bounds if user does not have access to ML jobs", () => {
    expect(
      hasExpectedBoundsOptions({
        url: "/services/frontend/overview",
        canGetJobs: false,
      })
    ).toBe(false);
  });

[qn895]

As discussed in Slack, I'll have refactor these tests in a follow-up.

[qn895]

@elasticmachine merge upstream

[kibana-ci]

💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: 84facda

Failed CI Steps

• FTR Configs #6
• APM Cypress Tests #2

Test Failures

• [job] [logs] FTR Configs #6 / ObservabilityApp Observability alerts / Add to case > When user has all privileges for cases renders case options in the overflow menu

Metrics [docs]

Async chunks

Total size of all lazy-loaded chunks that will be downloaded as the user navigates the app

id	before	after	diff
apm	3.5MB	3.5MB	+40.0B

Unknown metric groups

ESLint disabled line counts

id	before	after	diff
enterpriseSearch	19	21	+2
securitySolution	398	401	+3
total			+5

Total ESLint disabled count

id	before	after	diff
enterpriseSearch	20	22	+2
securitySolution	478	481	+3
total			+5

History

• 💚 Build #125007 succeeded 3f37787
• 💔 Build #124988 failed b43cc1f060d4ebc15dddeb90494e5451a1aa87b9
• 💚 Build #123608 succeeded e000cec

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

cc @qn895

[kibanamachine]

💚 All backports created successfully

Status	Branch	Result
✅	8.7
✅	8.8

Note: Successful backport PRs will be merged automatically after passing CI.

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation