Index Patterns - Define API for determining dependencies on a given index pattern

[mattkime]

It would be helpful if there was an API for communicating which saved objects had a dependency on a particular index pattern. Saved object references address the vast majority of uses cases but TSVB and perhaps a couple of others use index patterns in a non standard way.

There are two places where this could be used - as an additional tab on the index pattern management and in the index pattern field editor when fields are being changed or removed.

For this issue, lets just DEFINE the API, perhaps creating an RFC.

This work should start based on the the saved object relationship view and consider extending from there -

API should initially be used in index pattern management

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/kibana-app-services (Team:AppServices)

[stacey-gammon]

but TSVB and perhaps a couple of others use index patterns in a non-standard way.

TSVB I believe is planning to migrate to use Index Patterns in a standard way. Would there still be a benefit to this work if everyone used KIPs in the right way?

[mattkime]

Would there still be a benefit to this work if everyone used KIPs in the right way?

It simplifies the work to determine index pattern usage but it will still be worthwhile to make it available on the index pattern api.

[stacey-gammon]

Is this a proposal to just wrap the saved object references or something more?

I guess I'm not understanding where the push to implement this feature is coming from. If it's not going to be used, why are we prioritizing adding it to the interface? Seems like there are a lot of other more important things we could be focusing on. I think we should be trying to minimize and simplify our public API footprint, and if this gets us there, then I would be on board, but it sounds like we are just adding functionality without a clear use case in mind. Apologies if I'm missing context!

[mattkime]

Is this a proposal to just wrap the saved object references or something more?

We're going to work that out in this issue before before implementing, but yes, this is mostly a wrapper around saved object references. Initially I thought it might be something larger but at this point that seems unnecessary.

I guess I'm not understanding where the push to implement this feature is coming from.

Two main reasons -

Using saved object management to determine where index patterns are used is unnecessarily indirect and burying some very useful functionality. If we place that info in index pattern management it will be used more frequently.

As index patterns are made more flexible its helpful to provide users with feedback on what is potentially affected. We could provide better feedback when altering runtime fields or using the index pattern field editor more generally.

[ppisljar]

Thank you for contributing to this issue, however, we are closing this issue due to inactivity as part of a backlog grooming effort. If you believe this feature/bug should still be considered, please reopen with a comment.