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

[Fleet] Accommodate fetching details about EPM custom integrations #174739

Closed
eokoneyo opened this issue Jan 12, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

[Fleet] Accommodate fetching details about EPM custom integrations #174739

eokoneyo opened this issue Jan 12, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience Team:Fleet Team label for Observability Data Collection Fleet team

Comments

@eokoneyo
Copy link
Contributor

eokoneyo commented Jan 12, 2024

Kibana version:

https://github.com/elastic/kibana/tree/6c36503a6362435f17e7f2f3bdc0f69974d1e4c5 (this is the latest commit to main at the time of writing this issue, before the PR #174734 gets merged in).

Describe the bug:

Steps to reproduce:

  1. Checkout main at the commit specified above
  2. Run node scripts/build_kibana_platform_plugins --test-plugins --no-cache to ensure all files required to run the test are built
  3. Next run node x-pack/plugins/observability_onboarding/scripts/test/e2e --server to start the ftr server then in a different terminal run node x-pack/plugins/observability_onboarding/scripts/test/e2e --open, this will start open the cypress dashboard
  4. Choose to run E2E test, and select the install_elastic_agent.cy.ts spec.
  5. You'll notice that all tests after the first one fails, this is because the endpoint epm/packages/{packageName} doesn't resolve custom integrations properly. The custom integration created in the first test is found in the saved object, but despite the fact that when inspecting saved objects this particular form of the integration has no assets as seen in value returned;
{
id: 'mylogs' type: 'epm-packages', 
namespaces: [], 
migrationVersion: undefined,
updated_at: '2024-01-11T19:51:36.577Z', 
created_at: '2024-01-11T19:51:36.121Z'
Version: 'WzExMywxXQ==',
attributes: {
  installed_kibana: [], 
  installed_kibana_space_id: 'default',
  installed_es: [Array],
  package_assets: [],
  es_index_patterns: [Object],
  name: 'mylogs',
  version: '1.0.0', 
  install_ version: 1.0.0'
  install_status: 'installed', 
  install_started_at: '2024-01-11719:51:36.121Z'
  install source: 'custom'
  install _format_schema_version: '1.1.0', 
  verification status: 'unknown', 
  latest_install_failed_attempts:
 }
}

An attempt is still to made to resolve it's assets, which in turn results in the following error on the server;

Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 20 53 11

it's worth pointing out the same happens when the newer endpoint that expects the package version number is used

Expected behavior:

When custom integrations that are installed as packages with no assets are encountered, despite this we should skip trying to process it's non-existent assets.

@eokoneyo eokoneyo added bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience Team:Fleet Team label for Observability Data Collection Fleet team labels Jan 12, 2024
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/fleet (Team:Fleet)

eokoneyo added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2024
…4734)

## Summary

TLDR; This PR updates the cypress test suite that tests the custom
integration used to set up logs during onboarding.

The PR #171720 surfaced the fact
that this test suite isn't passing, especially given it doesn't run
unless a file with the observability onboarding plugin directory is
modified.

The most notable changes to the test suite, is opting to delete the
provided integration without verifying if it is installed. Why would we
do this one might ask;

- The existing API used to fetch integration packages expects packages
to have assets definition, and given this particular one doesn't have
assets so the request fails more details
[here](#174739).
- With the previous approach it required at least one call to determine
if the integration should be deleted, the only difference here is when
the test kicks off an attempt to delete an integration that doesn't
exist will be made once, but that's handled by setting setting the
cy.request `failOnStatusCode` option as false, so it doesn't error.
- it also unblocks the aforementioned PR

<!--
### Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

- [ ] Any text added follows [EUI's writing
guidelines](https://elastic.github.io/eui/#/guidelines/writing), uses
sentence case text and includes [i18n
support](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/packages/kbn-i18n/README.md)
- [ ]
[Documentation](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-documentation.html)
was added for features that require explanation or tutorials -->
- [x] [Unit or functional
tests](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-tests.html)
were updated or added to match the most common scenarios
<!--
- [ ] [Flaky Test
Runner](https://ci-stats.kibana.dev/trigger_flaky_test_runner/1) was
used on any tests changed
- [ ] Any UI touched in this PR is usable by keyboard only (learn more
about [keyboard accessibility](https://webaim.org/techniques/keyboard/))
- [ ] Any UI touched in this PR does not create any new axe failures
(run axe in browser:
[FF](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools/),
[Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe-web-accessibility-tes/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US))
- [ ] If a plugin configuration key changed, check if it needs to be
allowlisted in the cloud and added to the [docker
list](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/src/dev/build/tasks/os_packages/docker_generator/resources/base/bin/kibana-docker)
- [ ] This renders correctly on smaller devices using a responsive
layout. (You can test this [in your
browser](https://www.browserstack.com/guide/responsive-testing-on-local-server))
- [ ] This was checked for [cross-browser
compatibility](https://www.elastic.co/support/matrix#matrix_browsers)


### 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&mdash;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&mdash;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](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/RISK_MATRIX.mdx) |


### For maintainers

- [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled
appropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process)
-->
semd pushed a commit to semd/kibana that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2024
…stic#174734)

## Summary

TLDR; This PR updates the cypress test suite that tests the custom
integration used to set up logs during onboarding.

The PR elastic#171720 surfaced the fact
that this test suite isn't passing, especially given it doesn't run
unless a file with the observability onboarding plugin directory is
modified.

The most notable changes to the test suite, is opting to delete the
provided integration without verifying if it is installed. Why would we
do this one might ask;

- The existing API used to fetch integration packages expects packages
to have assets definition, and given this particular one doesn't have
assets so the request fails more details
[here](elastic#174739).
- With the previous approach it required at least one call to determine
if the integration should be deleted, the only difference here is when
the test kicks off an attempt to delete an integration that doesn't
exist will be made once, but that's handled by setting setting the
cy.request `failOnStatusCode` option as false, so it doesn't error.
- it also unblocks the aforementioned PR

<!--
### Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

- [ ] Any text added follows [EUI's writing
guidelines](https://elastic.github.io/eui/#/guidelines/writing), uses
sentence case text and includes [i18n
support](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/packages/kbn-i18n/README.md)
- [ ]
[Documentation](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-documentation.html)
was added for features that require explanation or tutorials -->
- [x] [Unit or functional
tests](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/development-tests.html)
were updated or added to match the most common scenarios
<!--
- [ ] [Flaky Test
Runner](https://ci-stats.kibana.dev/trigger_flaky_test_runner/1) was
used on any tests changed
- [ ] Any UI touched in this PR is usable by keyboard only (learn more
about [keyboard accessibility](https://webaim.org/techniques/keyboard/))
- [ ] Any UI touched in this PR does not create any new axe failures
(run axe in browser:
[FF](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/axe-devtools/),
[Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/axe-web-accessibility-tes/lhdoppojpmngadmnindnejefpokejbdd?hl=en-US))
- [ ] If a plugin configuration key changed, check if it needs to be
allowlisted in the cloud and added to the [docker
list](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/src/dev/build/tasks/os_packages/docker_generator/resources/base/bin/kibana-docker)
- [ ] This renders correctly on smaller devices using a responsive
layout. (You can test this [in your
browser](https://www.browserstack.com/guide/responsive-testing-on-local-server))
- [ ] This was checked for [cross-browser
compatibility](https://www.elastic.co/support/matrix#matrix_browsers)


### 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&mdash;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&mdash;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](https://github.com/elastic/kibana/blob/main/RISK_MATRIX.mdx) |


### For maintainers

- [ ] This was checked for breaking API changes and was [labeled
appropriately](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/kibana/master/contributing.html#kibana-release-notes-process)
-->
@weltenwort
Copy link
Member

The fact that the custom integrations don't have assets is a bug introduced in #173965. I've created a fix in #174869. There should be no special handling necessary for these custom integrations, because they should have a valid structure.

@jen-huang
Copy link
Contributor

@weltenwort Will #174869 fix this issue or is there still more to patch here?

@weltenwort
Copy link
Member

the fix should be sufficient and has just been merged

@jen-huang jen-huang changed the title Accommodate fetching details about EPM custom integrations [Fleet] Accommodate fetching details about EPM custom integrations Jan 29, 2024
@jen-huang
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @weltenwort, closing this one then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Fixes for quality problems that affect the customer experience Team:Fleet Team label for Observability Data Collection Fleet team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants