[SLO] Add support for document count to custom metric indicator

[simianhacker]

🍒 Summary

This PR fixes #170905 by adding the aggregation menu to the Custom Metric indicator to allow the user to pick either doc_count or sum for the aggregation.

[apmmachine]

🤖 GitHub comments

Expand to view the GitHub comments

Just comment with:

• /oblt-deploy : Deploy a Kibana instance using the Observability test environments.
• /oblt-deploy-serverless : Deploy a serverless Kibana instance using the Observability test environments.
• run elasticsearch-ci/docs : Re-trigger the docs validation. (use unformatted text in the comment!)

[simianhacker]

Found a bug while referencing the Timeslice Metric implementation

[kdelemme]

Oh! I guess it was ok because there was always a selected field (e.g. isClearable={false}) , but good find nonetheless

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/actionable-observability (Team: Actionable Observability)

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/obs-ux-management-team (Team:obs-ux-management)

[kibana-ci]

💛 Build succeeded, but was flaky

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: 39c2d88

Failed CI Steps

• Jest Integration Tests #3
• Defend Workflows Cypress Tests on Serverless #6
• Serverless Osquery Cypress Tests #6

Metrics [docs]

Public APIs missing comments

Total count of every public API that lacks a comment. Target amount is 0. Run node scripts/build_api_docs --plugin [yourplugin] --stats comments for more detailed information.

id	before	after	diff
@kbn/slo-schema	126	128	+2

Async chunks

Total size of all lazy-loaded chunks that will be downloaded as the user navigates the app

id	before	after	diff
observability	1.1MB	1.1MB	+1.9KB

Unknown metric groups

API count

id	before	after	diff
@kbn/slo-schema	129	131	+2

History

• 💔 Build #174460 failed d208958

To update your PR or re-run it, just comment with:
@elasticmachine merge upstream

cc @simianhacker

[mgiota]

I tested it locally and looks good, great addition!

I have a few comments regarding validation, that are irrelevant with this PR. This PR is already approved.

Regarding equation validation, we only check valid characters, not whether the aggregation name is correct. I have a video with the user experience in this case.

Screen.Recording.2023-11-09.at.12.01.35.mov

I noticed the same behaviour in the custom threshold rule, and @maryam-saeidi created a ticket to improve Custom threshold rule equation validation. Do you think this is something we could easily fix in our SLO page? I guess we need to change the regular expression, but I don't know how. I was wondering, is it possible to stay at the SLO detail page until we get a success/failure result? Because now we are redirected to SLO lists page and then back to SLO detail page with the toast error.

Also for consistency reasons if you think we should change validation style similar to what Mary changed in this PR, feel free to do it or create a separate ticket. According to the new validation style, Aggregation A shouldn't appear as red, only the dropdown.

[kdelemme]

LGTM, and tested locally:

• create SLO with doc count
• Edit SLO with doc count -> sum and vice versa
• Edit SLO with error (form is populated back correctly)

[simianhacker]

@mgiota I created an issue to track the validation improvements for the custom equation: #170962