[servicenow] Add Parsing for ECS Timestamp Field

[mohitjha-elastic]

Proposed commit message

servicenow: Add explicit date parsing for ECS @timestamp field.

Added explicit date parsing logic for the ECS @timestamp field to ensure consistent and accurate
timestamp handling during ingestion. Additionally, this ensures that the timestamp is explicitly parsed 
even when other date fields are not parsed, helping to avoid potential ingestion errors.

Checklist

• I have reviewed tips for building integrations and this pull request is aligned with them.
• I have verified that all data streams collect metrics or logs.
• I have added an entry to my package's changelog.yml file.
• I have verified that Kibana version constraints are current according to guidelines.
• I have verified that any added dashboard complies with Kibana's Dashboard good practices

How to test this PR locally

• Clone integrations repo.
• Install the elastic package locally.
• Start the elastic stack using the elastic package.
• Move to integrations/packages/servicenow directory.
• Run the following command to run tests.

elastic-package test -v

Related Issues

• Closes [ServiceNow]: @timestamp field isn't being formatted and causing a "date_time_parse_exception" #16514

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/security-service-integrations (Team:Security-Service Integrations)

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

🚀 Benchmarks report

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

[elasticmachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: 93a8667

cc @mohitjha-elastic

[ShourieG]

My concern here is with formats like

• MM-dd-yyyy
• dd-MM-yyyy

as these are ambiguous from a global timestamp perspective. In india it's common trend to use dd-MM-yyyy or dd/MM/yyyy or dd.MM.yyyy. But in many places we use mm-dd-yyyy and etc.

How do we distinguish if the date 01-02-2026 or 05-07-2026 is in MM-dd-yyyy format or dd-MM-yyyy format ? Do we expect '@timestamp' to be normalised in any way ? If not how can we decide upon the right order of execution here ? If '@timestamp' is normalised as month-day-year, why have support for both patterns ?

[efd6]

Agree. This is a LOCALE issue and should be configurable if it is necessary to handle different formats. Given that the servicenow data sources are essentially a free-for-all, we cannot safely determine which to use without being told by the user during configuration.

But in many places we use mm-dd-yyyy

Depending on the scope of "place"; this ordering is a US localisation.

[mohitjha-elastic]

The issue exists across the entire integration. All date processors currently support both MM-dd-yyyy and dd-MM-yyyy formats, while the preference is consistently set to MM-dd-yyyy across all processors.

I believe this is a separate concern, and we could open a new ticket to make the date format user-configurable instead of supporting multiple formats by default. Please let me know your thoughts, or if you think this should be addressed as part of the current PR.

[efd6]

I think it's reasonable to use this given that the pattern is already widespread. We should fix this in a follow-up though since currently dd-MM-yyyy dates in the source data are being incorrectly parsed when dd is not greater than 12. The problem is that currently the effective default LOCALE is for the US format, so we would need to maintain that, and non-US formats would be required to turn on their LOCALE preference to ensure that timestamps are parsed when they are not in dd ≤ 12. This would be a breaking change, unless we make it relaxed rather than strict (we keep both orders, but the configuration changes the order of appearance in the formats list).

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Package servicenow - 1.3.2 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/servicenow/1.3.2/

[mohitjha-elastic]

Here is the ticket to add the configurable date format handling date processors -
#17286