Enhance access query logic to handle user ID and name conditions

[arturoliduena]

[Obs AI Assistant] Fetch user instructions and conversation using user id instead of user name - #192701

To avoid potential collisions when fetching data, we should query for the user id instead of the user name when getting instructions or conversations.

If user.id is provided:

• Matches documents with user.id equal to the provided value.
• Falls back to user.name when user.id does not exist in the document.

If user.id is not provided:

• Matches only documents with user.name.

Summary

Summarize your PR. If it involves visual changes include a screenshot or gif.

Checklist

Check the PR satisfies following conditions.

Reviewers should verify this PR satisfies this list as well.

• 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
• If a plugin configuration key changed, check if it needs to be allowlisted in the cloud and added to the docker list
• This was checked for breaking HTTP API changes, and any breaking changes have been approved by the breaking-change committee. The release_note:breaking label should be applied in these situations.
• Flaky Test Runner was used on any tests changed
• The PR description includes the appropriate Release Notes section, and the correct release_note:* label is applied per the guidelines

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/obs-ai-assistant (Team:Obs AI Assistant)

[github-actions]

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

Just comment with:

• /oblt-deploy : Deploy a Kibana instance using the Observability test environments.
• run docs-build : Re-trigger the docs validation. (use unformatted text in the comment!)

[sorenlouv]

Perhaps the flattened ternaries are easier to read?

Suggested change

	? user.id
	? [
	{ term: { 'user.id': user.id } },
	{
	bool: {
	must_not: { exists: { field: 'user.id' } },
	must: { term: { 'user.name': user.name } },
	},
	},
	]
	: [{ term: { 'user.name': user.name } }]
	...(user?.id ? [
	{ term: { "user.id": user.id } },
	{
	bool: {
	must_not: { exists: { field: "user.id" } },
	must: { term: { "user.name": user.name } },
	},
	},
	]
	: []),
	...(user?.name && !user.id ? [{ term: { "user.name": user.name } }] : []),

[sorenlouv]

Or alternatively a separate function

function getUserAccessFilters(user?: User) {
  if (!user) {
    return [];
  }

  if (user.id) {
    return [
      { term: { 'user.id': user.id } },
      {
        bool: {
          must_not: { exists: { field: 'user.id' } },
          must: { term: { 'user.name': user.name } },
        },
      },
    ];
  }

  return [{ term: { 'user.name': user.name } }];
}

[arturoliduena]

a separate function is even easier to read. I prefer this alternative.

[sorenlouv]

Would it make sense to have a get_access_query.test.ts?

Actually, scratch that. Instead a simple API test would be better to actually test the 3 cases.

[elasticmachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: 90df2f7
• Kibana Serverless Image: docker.elastic.co/kibana-ci/kibana-serverless:pr-202833-90df2f779a7b

Metrics [docs]

✅ unchanged

History

• 💛 Build #256680 was flaky fee5a59

[sorenlouv]

lgtm! As mentioned, an API test would be nice but not blocking. I'd rather get this in ASAP and backported to 8.17 and 8.x

[kibanamachine]

Starting backport for target branches: 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.x

https://github.com/elastic/kibana/actions/runs/12161234533

[kibanamachine]

💔 Some backports could not be created

Status	Branch	Result
❌	8.15	Backport failed because of merge conflicts
❌	8.16	Backport failed because of merge conflicts
✅	8.17
✅	8.x

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

Manual backport

To create the backport manually run:

node scripts/backport --pr 202833

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation

[kibanamachine]

Looks like this PR has backport PRs but they still haven't been merged. Please merge them ASAP to keep the branches relatively in sync.

[kibanamachine]

Looks like this PR has backport PRs but they still haven't been merged. Please merge them ASAP to keep the branches relatively in sync.