[Fleet] Integration names should be globally unique

[caitlinbetz]

Describe the feature:
Related to: #68019

Currently, an integration name is only required to be unique within an agent configuration. As a result, this can look a little confusing on the endpoint/policy side, as the integration name is tied to the policy name. We end up with a scenario where there can be multiple policies with the same name, where it's not clear what agent configurations they are tied to.

Example:
Onboarding:

Policy:

For 7.9 we are working on adding in a column in our Policy view to list the associated agent configurations so we are better able to distinguish any "duplicate" names. (However - it looks like you're still able to create multiple agent configurations with the same name, see the issue #68275). Longer term, it may ultimately be a better solution to have integration names be unique globally (rather than just within an agent configuration), especially as we are eventually planning to have these be re-usable (@ruflin mentions this briefly here)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/ingest-management (Team:Ingest Management)

[ph]

We have just added this #79903 which make Agent policy name unique across fleet.

@caitlinbetz With the above solution do we really need to make the integrations name unique? @ruflin you have mentioned previously that if we don't make it unique it could be a problem #68019 (comment).

For me this look like two differents names, one is a reusable name/searchable.

[ruflin]

It still think we should also make integration policy names unique. It is not a strict requirement, but imagine you will have in a single Agent policy two integration policies called foo?

[jen-huang]

@ruflin @ph We currently have implemented that agent policy names must be unique across Fleet and integration policy names must be unique per agent policy. Is this sufficient?

[ruflin]

My thinking is that long term no, because of the policy templates we might build (see comment above).

Side note: In your screenshot the error message mentions packages, we should probably adjust this.

[ph]

@ruflin Just trying to understand the why, for you, the "policy template" and the integration policy is at the same level this why you believe the name must be the same?

[ruflin]

Let me give you an examples. Lets assume the following. User creates two polices:

• Agent policy A
• Agent policy B

In the Agent policy A, an integration policy with the name C is added. In addition, the user creates an reusable integration policy C and adds it to Agent policy B. All good so far. But now the user also assigns this policy to A. So A has now 2 integration policies with the name C.

All the above assumes we will have reusable integration policies.

[ph]

I understand now, I would have taken a different approach similar to what "photoshop" or sketch does. Where the template name and integration policy name are different.
Template:

{
template_name: "EDF",
data: .......
}

Agent Policy integrations:

[
{
 Integration policy name: "Abc"
 linked: {
  type: "template"
  document_id:  "{UUID}"
 }
 }
]