[Security Solution] rules count is wrong

[gavinwye]

Describe the bug:
The rules page says we're showing 561 rules but users can only see 20 of 561, because of the way the pagination works.

Kibana/Elasticsearch Stack version:

v 7.16.1

Original install method (e.g. download page, yum, from source, etc.):
Eden

Functional Area (e.g. Endpoint management, timelines, resolver, etc.):
Detections > Rules

Steps to reproduce:
View the page

Current behavior:
The rules page says we're showing 561 rules but users can only see 20 of 561, because of the way the pagination works.

Expected behavior:
We should tell users that we're showing 20 of 561 this element should be linked to the pagination and update as users change the pagination.

We should also question if this is really needed or can it be removed?

Screenshots (if relevant):

[elasticmachine]

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

[elasticmachine]

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

[banderror]

This label could also just show Total 561 rules.
A more verbose label could show: Rules: total 561, showing 20, selected 0.

@yiyangliu9286 could you please share your thoughts?

[yiyangliu9286]

This label could also just show Total 561 rules. A more verbose label could show: Rules: total 561, showing 20, selected 0.

@yiyangliu9286 could you please share your thoughts?

@banderror Thanks for asking this! According to the latest table utility bar component in Figma from EUI. They are suggested to show the format of: Showing 1-10 of {#} Things

So in the sense of Rule's table, for example, here's the design that we could go about based on the EUI table utility bar component:
To be as "Showing 1-10 of 596 rules" for the default state, if we're showing 20 rules per page by default, then it should be "Showing 1-20 of 596 rules" (Figma)

Although this table utility bar component has not yet become a coded component yet. I am suggesting it would be ideal if we could be as close as what EUI component is.

[banderror]

@yiyangliu9286 thank you so much for your quick feedback! This suggestion LGTM 👍

[jpdjere]

@gavinwye @yiyangliu9286 This issue was addressed in #138902

[MadameSheema]

@deepikakeshav-qasource can you please validate on latest main when you have the chance? Thanks!

[ghost]

Hi @MadameSheema ,

We have validated this issue on Main branch build and observed that issue is Fixed. ✔️

Please find the below Testing Details:

Build info

Version: Mains
COMMIT: f013788fd6e4971151bbb048dcd368ea2773ff23

Screen-shots

Hence, We are closing this issue and marking as QA Validated!!

Thanks!!

[ghost]

Hi Team,

we have validated this issue on 8.5.0 BC1 and found the issue to be still fixed ✔️ .

Build Details:

Version:8.5.0
Commit:0d8de4df69f8084a94cdd9638d7de510813cb5ce
Build:56595

Screen-Shot:

Hence we are closing this issue and adding "QA:Validated" tag to it.

thanks !!