Skip to content

Conversation

@nastasha-solomon
Copy link
Contributor

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon commented Aug 11, 2022

Addresses #2265.

Previews:

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2022 14:04
@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon marked this pull request as draft August 16, 2022 14:23
@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon marked this pull request as ready for review August 16, 2022 15:33
Copy link

@janmonschke janmonschke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

🎉

Copy link

@michaelolo24 michaelolo24 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Awesome sauce! Thanks for updating this 😄

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon added the readyforQA PRs that are ready for QA review. label Aug 18, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@benironside benironside left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, just left one minor suggestion

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2022
20 tasks
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 22, 2022

Hi @nastasha-solomon

we have validated the docs preview and all the required changes are present and correct. ✔️

Snap-Shoot

image

Hence we are adding "QA:Validated" tag to it.

thanks !!

@ghost ghost added QA:Validated Issue has been Validated by QA Team and removed readyforQA PRs that are ready for QA review. labels Aug 22, 2022
Copy link
Contributor

@jmikell821 jmikell821 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just a comment. LGTM otherwise! 👍

Co-authored-by: Janeen Mikell-Straughn <57149392+jmikell821@users.noreply.github.com>
@nastasha-solomon
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jmikell821 qq: are you saying it's ok to omit for/on in this sentence?

This section only displays for alerts with intelligence data.

I do think it needs "for/on" because the sentence saying that the "Enriched data" section only displays when the alert being viewed has threat intel data. To use a general example, if a threat indicator match alert was generated, it should have threat intel data. Now, because it has threat intel data, the "Enriched data" section will show up on the Overview tab when you open the alert's details. If you removed "for/on" in the sentence, it would say the following, which is not correct:

This section only displays alerts with threat intel.

Does this revision help clarify things at all?

This section only displays when viewing alerts with intelligence data.

@jmikell821
Copy link
Contributor

@nastasha-solomon yes I'm OK with the revision.

@jmikell821 qq: are you saying it's ok to omit for/on in this sentence?

This section only displays for alerts with intelligence data.

I do think it needs "for/on" because the sentence saying that the "Enriched data" section only displays when the alert being viewed has threat intel data. To use a general example, if a threat indicator match alert was generated, it should have threat intel data. Now, because it has threat intel data, the "Enriched data" section will show up on the Overview tab when you open the alert's details. If you removed "for/on" in the sentence, it would say the following, which is not correct:

This section only displays alerts with threat intel.

Does this revision help clarify things at all?

This section only displays when viewing alerts with intelligence data.

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon merged commit 20c0674 into main Aug 23, 2022
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2022
Co-authored-by: Joe Peeples <joe.peeples@elastic.co>
Co-authored-by: Janeen Mikell-Straughn <57149392+jmikell821@users.noreply.github.com>
(cherry picked from commit 20c0674)
nastasha-solomon added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 23, 2022
… (backport #2298) (#2352)

Co-authored-by: Joe Peeples <joe.peeples@elastic.co>
Co-authored-by: Janeen Mikell-Straughn <57149392+jmikell821@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: nastasha-solomon <79124755+nastasha-solomon@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Feature: Alerts QA:Validated Issue has been Validated by QA Team Team: Docs Team: Threat Hunting Formerly Data Visibility v8.4.0

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants