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

[Alerting] Investigate allowing shard_delay aggregation in development mode for stack rules #122708

Closed
ymao1 opened this issue Jan 11, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
Feature:Alerting/RuleTypes Issues related to specific Alerting Rules Types Team:ResponseOps Label for the ResponseOps team (formerly the Cases and Alerting teams)

Comments

@ymao1
Copy link
Contributor

ymao1 commented Jan 11, 2022

To test search_sessions, the App Services team added a data.search.aggs.shardDelay.enabled setting that, when enabled, allows you to specify a shard_delay aggregation to use to extend query times for testing. PR here. We can investigate adding a similar setting to the stack_alerts plugin to allow our stack rule executors to use the shard_delay agg for functional testing.

@ymao1 ymao1 added Team:ResponseOps Label for the ResponseOps team (formerly the Cases and Alerting teams) Feature:Alerting/RuleTypes Issues related to specific Alerting Rules Types labels Jan 11, 2022
@elasticmachine
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @elastic/response-ops (Team:ResponseOps)

@kobelb kobelb added the needs-team Issues missing a team label label Jan 31, 2022
@botelastic botelastic bot removed the needs-team Issues missing a team label label Jan 31, 2022
@mikecote
Copy link
Contributor

mikecote commented Sep 8, 2022

Closing as not necessary at this time given we have a functional test using shard_delay.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Feature:Alerting/RuleTypes Issues related to specific Alerting Rules Types Team:ResponseOps Label for the ResponseOps team (formerly the Cases and Alerting teams)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants