-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.2k
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
Users in the alerting context #64588
Comments
Pinging @elastic/kibana-alerting-services (Team:Alerting Services) |
After talking with @jgowdyelastic it sounds like ML is intending to add capabilities checks to all of their plugin's services. In the current implementation, that would require a KibanaRequest in addition to the scoped client provided by #62886. TL;DR this is about to become a blocker on either the ML capabilities work, or SIEM's integration with ML and Alerting. |
Note for alerting team: Based on the menton here: #39430 (comment), this issue will expose the fake request object to alert and action executors and have clear documentation what breaking changes are coming that will remove the fake request and explain why its exposed in the meantime. This should help developers understand possible debt they're taking on with the usage of the fake request. This issue should also remove the |
cc @arisonl |
@rylnd the alerting team is doing some 7.12 release planning and I was wondering if SIEM was still waiting on this issue to integrate with ML? We will work on it in 7.12 if that is the case 🙏 but wanted to make sure |
Moving from |
Moving from |
Closing due to lack of request. Let's re-open if we have some recent use cases and we can explore exposing the |
I started this discussion with #62886, but I believe that there's a broader need for user information within alerting. The simplest use case is retrieving user information for auditing purposes.
User retrieval is (to my knowledge) only accessible via
security.authc.getCurrentUser
, which itself requires aKibanaRequest
object, so we're back to where we were with #62886, where alerting must either provide a request or its own interface to accomplish the same.Another aspect of this issue: in the auditing scenario, the distinction between "user-initiated request" and "alert-initiated request" may be a meaningful one worth codifying (although it could also be done downstream).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: