Skip to content

Conversation

@dhurley14
Copy link
Contributor

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
  • Review the backport guidelines and apply applicable backport:* labels.

Identify risks

Does this PR introduce any risks? For example, consider risks like hard to test bugs, performance regression, potential of data loss.

Describe the risk, its severity, and mitigation for each identified risk. Invite stakeholders and evaluate how to proceed before merging.

rylnd and others added 30 commits October 29, 2025 16:12
This does not include changes to existing roles, nor the role migration
machinery.
These changes were made automatically in an initial commit that added
our new features to roles; those changes have since been reverted
(320c34f), and thus there should not currently be any behavioral
changes in these files, which makes these stylistic changes even more
unnecessary.

Note: I also noticed that a few old references had (accidentally?)
remained in `security_roles.json` after `320c34f485`; this cleans those
up as well.
Instead of requiring siemVX read/all, it now requires securitySolutionRulesV1 read/all
It is unclear on wether "dashboards" and "integrations" should be exclusive to `siemV5` or `securitySolutionRulesV1`. So for now we are showing it when the user has either of those.
Now it requires the `securitySolutionRulesV1.all` privilege
No security subfeature is required in all spaces anymore. The test was failing because the `siemV5` feature file never got updated and it was still referencing a feature flag that has been enabled and removed in `main`.
The feature flag in question is `endpointManagementSpaceAwarenessEnabled` which was being used to override the subfeature configuration by setting `requireAllSpaces=false` and `privilegesTooltip=undefined`. Now that the feature flag doesn't exist, it makes sense to remove these properties directly in the subfeature configuration instead of overriding them outside of it.
The logic to show it was relying on the old siemPrivileges, however value lists is now under rules.
Reshuffling privileges and removal of alerting privileges from siemV5. These alerting privileges exist exclusively in securitySolutionRulesV1
This notably includes the fix to the infinite loop on the alerts page
when a role lacks sufficient lists privileges.
The test broke after merging main into the branch
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

🤖 Jobs for this PR can be triggered through checkboxes. 🚧

ℹ️ To trigger the CI, please tick the checkbox below 👇

  • Click to trigger kibana-pull-request for this PR!
  • Click to trigger kibana-deploy-project-from-pr for this PR!
  • Click to trigger kibana-deploy-cloud-from-pr for this PR!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants