Skip to content

[8.19] Prebuilt rule reversion documentation #6937

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: 8.19
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nastasha-solomon
Copy link
Contributor

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon commented Jul 17, 2025

Contributes to elastic/docs-content#1940 by documenting how to check modified prebuilt rule fields and revert them.

Previews:

Corresponding 9.19 and Serverless docs: elastic/docs-content#2175

Copy link

A documentation preview will be available soon.

Request a new doc build by commenting
  • Rebuild this PR: run docs-build
  • Rebuild this PR and all Elastic docs: run docs-build rebuild

run docs-build is much faster than run docs-build rebuild. A rebuild should only be needed in rare situations.

If your PR continues to fail for an unknown reason, the doc build pipeline may be broken. Elastic employees can check the pipeline status here.

Copy link
Contributor

@dplumlee dplumlee left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This language looks good to me @nastasha-solomon, do you think it's worth putting any documentation for the "missing base version" case where we suggest they update the rule instead? Can't remember exactly how we split that description up in the rule upgrade docs but we have similar levels of explanation between the two features in-app

@nastasha-solomon
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ooh, yeah good idea. I'll add that in a few hours. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants