Skip to content

Conversation

@mmahacek
Copy link
Contributor

@mmahacek mmahacek commented Sep 9, 2025

Partially addresses #890 to fix endpoints where the URL has changed with version 9.0.0+

Checklist

  • I have verified that the APIs in this pull request do not return sensitive data

@mmahacek mmahacek requested a review from pickypg as a code owner September 9, 2025 20:19
Copy link
Member

@pickypg pickypg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM with some questions about the added comment lines and maybe an improvement we should add to limit trying to access those APIs in 9.0+?

@mmahacek mmahacek marked this pull request as draft September 9, 2025 20:32
@mmahacek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmahacek commented Sep 9, 2025

@pickypg I left those as comments for the moment, as it would be best if there's a way to modify the API call to force a response. I'm flipping this to be a draft for the moment, as I research to see if there's any way around this.

@pickypg
Copy link
Member

pickypg commented Sep 9, 2025

@mmahacek It's possible that those APIs require a special request header, which we have a branch of code ready to support. I hope to revisit that next week (not the first time I've had that hope though).

My main point is, for your research, see if those APIs need a request header and, if so, we probably have a solution.

@mmahacek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmahacek commented Sep 9, 2025

It does look like if we can include x-elastic-internal-origin: kibana as a header, the calls should work. I just tested this on one of my instances. Do you think we could add this header to all Kibana API calls, or would we need to update to indicate specific versions that need the header sent?

@pickypg
Copy link
Member

pickypg commented Sep 9, 2025

With the changes, we'll able to support both scenarios and other headers.

@mmahacek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmahacek commented Sep 9, 2025

Do you think we can merge this PR to include these fixes, and leave the issue open pending a second PR to resolve the headers at some point in the future?

@mmahacek mmahacek marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2025 20:46
@pickypg
Copy link
Member

pickypg commented Sep 9, 2025

I'm going to try to use this to pressure myself to get the header logic merged next week, then we can adjust these API calls to work. That timing work out okay? I would be unlikely to do a release before next week anyway.

@mmahacek
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmahacek commented Sep 9, 2025

That's completely fine with me. I wasn't even expecting this fast a response to the review request, so thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants