Skip to content

Fix broken link for Prebuilt Security Detection Rules #11929

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

Merged
merged 0 commits into from
Dec 13, 2024

Conversation

alaudazzi
Copy link
Contributor

@alaudazzi alaudazzi added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. Applied to PRs that modify *.md files. bugfix Pull request that fixes a bug issue Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations] labels Nov 29, 2024
@alaudazzi alaudazzi self-assigned this Nov 29, 2024
@alaudazzi alaudazzi requested a review from a team as a code owner November 29, 2024 14:35
@elasticmachine
Copy link

Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations)

@andrewkroh andrewkroh added the Integration:security_detection_engine Prebuilt Security Detection Rules label Nov 29, 2024
@efd6 efd6 removed the Team:Security-Service Integrations Security Service Integrations team [elastic/security-service-integrations] label Dec 1, 2024
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
# newer versions go on top
# NOTE: please use pre-release versions (e.g. -beta.0) until a package is ready for production
- version: 8.16.3
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see why a version bump is being done to fix readme docs here, which will not include any rule updates. Which means the rule packages will be as good as 8.16.2

We could combine this fix in our upcoming release schedule along with rule package changes, if this is not a critical fix that needs be published right away.

We have a release scheduled on Dec 9 for 8.16.3 version, along with other supported versions, which can accommodate this change for 8.16.3 and future versions.
cc @Mikaayenson

@shashank-elastic
Copy link
Contributor

shashank-elastic commented Dec 13, 2024

Apologies, this was missed in the last release train, we ran into issues of packages, which made me err and forget we had to piggy back this change.

The change will fix the broken documentation, here where there will be no updates to the package.

image

My only suggestion would be make this beta 8.17.2-beta.1 and we will GA it together with the next package updates in Jan 2025. the PR can be closed. I am just suggesting a beta package as opposed to a GA one. Will that work @alaudazzi

Copy link
Contributor

@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving the beta change to GA this along with packages updates in Jan 2025.

@elasticmachine
Copy link

💚 Build Succeeded

History

cc @alaudazzi

Copy link

@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic merged commit b482f1b into main Dec 13, 2024
5 checks passed
@shashank-elastic shashank-elastic deleted the fix-broken-link-security-detection-engine branch December 13, 2024 10:45
@elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod

Package security_detection_engine - 8.17.2-beta.1 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/security_detection_engine/8.17.2-beta.1/

harnish-crest-data pushed a commit to chavdaharnish/integrations that referenced this pull request Feb 4, 2025
harnish-crest-data pushed a commit to chavdaharnish/integrations that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bugfix Pull request that fixes a bug issue documentation Improvements or additions to documentation. Applied to PRs that modify *.md files. Integration:security_detection_engine Prebuilt Security Detection Rules
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants