[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema #244134
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
managed field to dataViewSpecSchema
Contributor
|
@cesco-f, it looks like you're updating the parameters for a rule type! Please review the guidelines for making additive changes to rule type parameters and determine if your changes require an intermediate release. |
Contributor
|
Pinging @elastic/obs-ux-management-team (Team:obs-ux-management) |
managed field to dataViewSpecSchemamanaged field from custom threshold rule params
delanni
approved these changes
Nov 25, 2025
Contributor
🤖 GitHub commentsExpand to view the GitHub comments
Just comment with:
|
managed field from custom threshold rule params
cesco-f
commented
Nov 26, 2025
Comment on lines
184
to
190
| { | ||
| // Allow and ignore unknown properties to make the schema resilient to new properties | ||
| // added by the data-views plugin (e.g. 'managed'). This prevents validation errors | ||
| // when the DataViewSpec type is extended but our schema hasn't been updated yet. | ||
| unknowns: 'ignore', | ||
| } | ||
| ); |
Contributor
Author
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you alternatively add that field as a maybe to pass validation and then just ignore it? That would be a less impactful change.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The thing is that if I do that and more fields are added to the Data view I'll face the exact same problem. I'd like a more resilient solution for this.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do I understand correctly that we don't validate searchConfigruation parameters in ES Query rule? (code)
If that’s the case, the change Francesco introduced would be more future-proof, but perhaps not ideal. It would be better if API validation came from the data-plugin itself, so that if the schema changes in the future, we still get the correct validation. (Bonus: Would be great to avoid storing everything as-is in the rule and instead define a separate schema specifically for API persistence.)
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do I understand correctly that we don't validate searchConfigruation parameters in ES Query rule? (code)
It seems like it 🤔
The thing is that if I do that and more fields are added to the Data view I'll face the exact same problem. I'd like a more resilient solution for this.
Agree, but that would be at the expense of things like misconfigured rules where typos get ignored, and the user doesn't know it is running incorrectly. Also, as soon as we toggle that option, removing it will become a breaking change.
imo it's better to allow the minimum possible bit by bit, rather than everything all at once.
It would be better if API validation came from the data-plugin itself, so that if the schema changes in the future, we still get the correct validation.
+1, I will discuss it with the team! (But not for this PR)
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree, but that would be at the expense of things like misconfigured rules where typos get ignored, and the user doesn't know it is running incorrectly. Also, as soon as we toggle that option, removing it will become a breaking change.
imo it's better to allow the minimum possible bit by bit, rather than everything all at once.
Changed it here: e76448b
...solutions/observability/test/observability_functional/apps/observability/pages/rules_page.ts
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
db4c5b3 to
e76448b
Compare
adcoelho
approved these changes
Nov 27, 2025
Contributor
💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky
Failed CI StepsTest Failures
Metrics [docs]
History
|
Contributor
|
Starting backport for target branches: 9.2 |
kibanamachine
added a commit
to kibanamachine/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2025
## Summary Fixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data view objects by adding the missing `managed` field to `dataViewSpecSchema`. ## Problem When creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in `searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with: `params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed validation: [searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got [Object] [searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is missing` The DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in elastic#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema` validation, causing rule creation to fail. ## Solution Added the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema` in `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`. `managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())` This approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring unknown properties, which: - Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still fail) - Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns: 'ignore'` Before: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d After: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74 --------- Co-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit f6abc44)
Contributor
💚 All backports created successfully
Note: Successful backport PRs will be merged automatically after passing CI. Questions ?Please refer to the Backport tool documentation |
kibanamachine
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2025
…#244640) # Backport This will backport the following commits from `main` to `9.2`: - [[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema (#244134)](#244134) <!--- Backport version: 9.6.6 --> ### Questions ? Please refer to the [Backport tool documentation](https://github.com/sorenlouv/backport) <!--BACKPORT [{"author":{"name":"Francesco Fagnani","email":"[email protected]"},"sourceCommit":{"committedDate":"2025-11-28T12:34:51Z","message":"[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema (#244134)\n\n## Summary\n\nFixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data\nview objects by adding the missing `managed` field to\n`dataViewSpecSchema`.\n\n## Problem\n\nWhen creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in\n`searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with:\n\n`params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed\nvalidation:\n[searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got\n[Object]\n[searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is\nmissing`\n\nThe DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in\n#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema`\nvalidation, causing rule creation to fail.\n\n## Solution\n\nAdded the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema`\nin `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`.\n\n`managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())`\n\nThis approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring\nunknown properties, which:\n- Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still\nfail)\n- Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns:\n'ignore'`\n\nBefore:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d\n\nAfter:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74\n\n---------\n\nCo-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>","sha":"f6abc4444d3849f212f715cfeb0d5187b25bf6c5","branchLabelMapping":{"^v9.3.0$":"main","^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$":"$1.$2"}},"sourcePullRequest":{"labels":["release_note:fix","ci:project-deploy-observability","backport:version","v9.3.0","v9.2.2","author:actionable-obs","Team:obs-ux-management"],"title":"[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema","number":244134,"url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/244134","mergeCommit":{"message":"[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema (#244134)\n\n## Summary\n\nFixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data\nview objects by adding the missing `managed` field to\n`dataViewSpecSchema`.\n\n## Problem\n\nWhen creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in\n`searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with:\n\n`params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed\nvalidation:\n[searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got\n[Object]\n[searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is\nmissing`\n\nThe DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in\n#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema`\nvalidation, causing rule creation to fail.\n\n## Solution\n\nAdded the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema`\nin `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`.\n\n`managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())`\n\nThis approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring\nunknown properties, which:\n- Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still\nfail)\n- Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns:\n'ignore'`\n\nBefore:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d\n\nAfter:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74\n\n---------\n\nCo-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>","sha":"f6abc4444d3849f212f715cfeb0d5187b25bf6c5"}},"sourceBranch":"main","suggestedTargetBranches":["9.2"],"targetPullRequestStates":[{"branch":"main","label":"v9.3.0","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v9.3.0$","isSourceBranch":true,"state":"MERGED","url":"https://github.com/elastic/kibana/pull/244134","number":244134,"mergeCommit":{"message":"[Rule params] Add managed field to dataViewSpecSchema (#244134)\n\n## Summary\n\nFixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data\nview objects by adding the missing `managed` field to\n`dataViewSpecSchema`.\n\n## Problem\n\nWhen creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in\n`searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with:\n\n`params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed\nvalidation:\n[searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got\n[Object]\n[searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is\nmissing`\n\nThe DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in\n#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema`\nvalidation, causing rule creation to fail.\n\n## Solution\n\nAdded the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema`\nin `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`.\n\n`managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())`\n\nThis approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring\nunknown properties, which:\n- Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still\nfail)\n- Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns:\n'ignore'`\n\nBefore:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d\n\nAfter:\n\n\nhttps://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74\n\n---------\n\nCo-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>","sha":"f6abc4444d3849f212f715cfeb0d5187b25bf6c5"}},{"branch":"9.2","label":"v9.2.2","branchLabelMappingKey":"^v(\\d+).(\\d+).\\d+$","isSourceBranch":false,"state":"NOT_CREATED"}]}] BACKPORT--> Co-authored-by: Francesco Fagnani <[email protected]>
tkajtoch
pushed a commit
to tkajtoch/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2025
## Summary Fixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data view objects by adding the missing `managed` field to `dataViewSpecSchema`. ## Problem When creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in `searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with: `params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed validation: [searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got [Object] [searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is missing` The DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in elastic#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema` validation, causing rule creation to fail. ## Solution Added the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema` in `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`. `managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())` This approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring unknown properties, which: - Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still fail) - Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns: 'ignore'` Before: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d After: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74 --------- Co-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>
NicholasPeretti
pushed a commit
to NicholasPeretti/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 2, 2025
## Summary Fixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data view objects by adding the missing `managed` field to `dataViewSpecSchema`. ## Problem When creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in `searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with: `params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed validation: [searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got [Object] [searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is missing` The DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in elastic#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema` validation, causing rule creation to fail. ## Solution Added the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema` in `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`. `managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())` This approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring unknown properties, which: - Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still fail) - Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns: 'ignore'` Before: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d After: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74 --------- Co-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>
JordanSh
pushed a commit
to JordanSh/kibana
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2025
## Summary Fixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data view objects by adding the missing `managed` field to `dataViewSpecSchema`. ## Problem When creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in `searchConfiguration.index`, the validation was failing with: `params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed validation: [searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got [Object] [searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is missing` The DataView's `toSpec()` method includes a `managed` field (added in elastic#223451), but this field was not part of the `dataViewSpecSchema` validation, causing rule creation to fail. ## Solution Added the `managed` field as an optional boolean to `dataViewSpecSchema` in `@kbn/response-ops-rule-params`. `managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())` This approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring unknown properties, which: - Maintains strict validation (typos/misconfigured rules will still fail) - Avoids the breaking change implications of toggling `unknowns: 'ignore'` Before: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/7ad0fd02-9dc6-42fe-b90c-bf87d73cca9d After: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/385eb375-ac9d-471c-8a2f-118f1e56dd74 --------- Co-authored-by: kibanamachine <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
8 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Fixes validation error when creating custom threshold rules with data view objects by adding the missing
managedfield todataViewSpecSchema.Problem
When creating a custom threshold rule with a data view object in
searchConfiguration.index, the validation was failing with:params invalid: [searchConfiguration.index]: types that failed validation: [searchConfiguration.index.0]: expected value of type [string] but got [Object] [searchConfiguration.index.1.managed]: definition for this key is missingThe DataView's
toSpec()method includes amanagedfield (added in #223451), but this field was not part of thedataViewSpecSchemavalidation, causing rule creation to fail.Solution
Added the
managedfield as an optional boolean todataViewSpecSchemain@kbn/response-ops-rule-params.managed: schema.maybe(schema.boolean())This approach explicitly defines the expected field rather than ignoring unknown properties, which:
unknowns: 'ignore'Before:
Screen.Recording.2025-11-25.at.11.51.52.mov
After:
Screen.Recording.2025-11-25.at.11.50.48.mov