Universal Profiling: Add Kibana constraint to support 9.0.0

[florianl]

Proposed commit message

Universal Profiling: Add Kibana constraint to support 9.0.0

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

[rockdaboot]

Just for my understanding:
Wouldn't it be more intuitive to implement a 9.0.0 version and saying that it is compatible with >= 8.17.1? Currently (if I understand correctly), this PR implements a version 8.17.3 that says it is compatible with everything >= 9.0.0, which might not be true any more in the future.

[florianl]

[..] this PR implements a version 8.17.3 that says it is compatible with everything >= 9.0.0, which might not be true any more in the future.

This is not correct. This PR bumps the integration packages to version 8.17.3 and sets the minimal supported kibana version to 8.17.3 OR 9.0.0.

[rockdaboot]

[..] this PR implements a version 8.17.3 that says it is compatible with everything >= 9.0.0, which might not be true any more in the future.

This is not correct. This PR bumps the integration packages to version 8.17.3 and sets the minimal supported kibana version to 8.17.3 OR 9.0.0.

Right, excuse my brevity, I left away the 8.17.3 compatibility part as that seemed to be obvious. The question was more if it possibly makes more sense to introduce a 9.0.0 package version that is compatible a minimal 8.x version of 8.17.3 and a minimal 9.x version of 9.0.0. Because it is expected that future versions of 8.x stay compatible with 9.0.0. But it is not clear if 8.17.3 stays compatible with future 9.x versions.
Just curious, not sure if my understanding is correct here.

[elasticmachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: bfe0fa8

History

• 💚 Build #23545 succeeded 6fedf2c

[elastic-sonarqube]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

[florianl]

The question was more if it possibly makes more sense to introduce a 9.0.0 package version that is compatible a minimal 8.x version of 8.17.3 and a minimal 9.x version of 9.0.0.

The integration package version can be pushed any time. If there will be a feature, that is only compatible with 9.x, then it makes sense to me, to push also the integration package version to 9.x.
Personally, I think it is easier to use the minimal supported kibana version as integration package version, as long as the forwards compatibility is given. Having a 9.x integration package and needing to figure out which 8.x kibana version is supported feels like unneeded overhead.
Also, to follow the general Elastic version policy, everything that is marked as 9.x is not supported with 8.x components, while 8.x components might work with 9.x unless there is a breaking change.

Because it is expected that future versions of 8.x stay compatible with 9.0.0. But it is not clear if 8.17.3 stays compatible with future 9.x versions.

As far as I know, there is no integration package concept that supports diverging integrations for major versions.

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Package profiler_agent - 8.17.3 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/profiler_agent/8.17.3/

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Package profiler_collector - 8.17.3 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/profiler_collector/8.17.3/

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Package profiler_symbolizer - 8.17.3 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/profiler_symbolizer/8.17.3/