[Alerting] Alerting authorization should always exempt alerts consumer

[ymao1]

Resolves #108206

Summary

Reverts some the changes from this PR, specifically the changes to the alerting authorization client.

Previously the alerting authorization client always special-cased the alerts consumer when checking authorization, so that rules created in the Stack Rules Management UI would only be subject to producer based RBAC. I assumed this exemption was something only needed by the alerting framework, which is true for the way rules are used now, but not true for alerts derived from rules, so during the refactor, the rules client would specify this exemption when using the authorization client but any external users of the client would not be able to specify this exemption. With this revert, this exemption is applied to all users of the authorization client so rules created in Stack Rules Management and their derived alerts are only subject to producer based RBAC.

Checklist

Delete any items that are not applicable to this PR.

• Unit or functional tests were updated or added to match the most common scenarios

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/kibana-alerting-services (Team:Alerting Services)

[pmuellr]

changes LGTM

Only thing I'm wondering about is if we would want a FT for this, but not quite sure how it would work. Wouldn't need to be part of this PR, and we're getting some implicit testing with the rule registry anyway.

[ymao1]

Only thing I'm wondering about is if we would want a FT for this, but not quite sure how it would work. Wouldn't need to be part of this PR, and we're getting some implicit testing with the rule registry anyway.

I agree! We have this issue open for adding tests under user with limited role and I think functional tests for this stuff in that test suite would make a lot of sense!

[YulNaumenko]

LGTM! Is it documented for plugin devs somewhere how to use our authorization client?

[ymao1]

LGTM! Is it documented for plugin devs somewhere how to use our authorization client?

I don't think so but it definitely should be! I'll make an issue for it, thanks!

[kibanamachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• continuous-integration/kibana-ci/pull-request
• Commit: d29eb42
• Storybooks Preview

Metrics [docs]

✅ unchanged

History

• 💚 Build #144471 succeeded 970cc12

To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with:
@elasticmachine merge upstream

cc @ymao1

[kibanamachine]

💚 Backport successful

Status	Branch	Result
✅	7.x

This backport PR will be merged automatically after passing CI.