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

[8.9] [data view editor] Fix data view timestamp validation (#150398) #160990

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 30, 2023

Conversation

kibanamachine
Copy link
Contributor

Backport

This will backport the following commits from main to 8.9:

Questions ?

Please refer to the Backport tool documentation

## Summary

Previously - If you changed a data view's index pattern AND the new
pattern didn't contain the timestamp field, you'd see a blank timestamp
field and it would let you save. The data view would have been saved
with the previous timestamp field which doesn't exist.

Now - The timestamp validator checks to make sure the selected timestamp
field is in the list of available options. This is helpful because it
keeps the previous timestamp value in case you do select an index
pattern that contains it.

Closes: elastic#150219
(cherry picked from commit 646539c)
@kibanamachine kibanamachine merged commit 9a3dd16 into elastic:8.9 Jun 30, 2023
3 checks passed
@kibana-ci
Copy link
Collaborator

💚 Build Succeeded

Metrics [docs]

Async chunks

Total size of all lazy-loaded chunks that will be downloaded as the user navigates the app

id before after diff
dataViewEditor 40.2KB 40.3KB +109.0B
Unknown metric groups

ESLint disabled line counts

id before after diff
enterpriseSearch 13 15 +2
securitySolution 415 419 +4
total +6

Total ESLint disabled count

id before after diff
enterpriseSearch 14 16 +2
securitySolution 496 500 +4
total +6

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

cc @mattkime

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants