okta: fix missing boolean negation

[efd6]

Proposed commit message

okta: fix missing boolean negation

The previous code was only doing the conversion when it was a semantic
no-op. Fix that.

Test sample obtained from internal sources with sanitisation.

Note

This never worked, so we are not bound by compatibility with the previous format. I think we should consider changing the v.toString() calls to Json.dump(v) calls, since the latter is more safely parseable. We cannot change to flattened, since it is possible (however unlikely) that there are indexes in the wild that have only ever been given strings in these fields.

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

Author's Checklist

• [ ]

How to test this PR locally

Related issues

• Fixes [Okta System]: Mapping conflict in okta.target.changeDetails-* field #14988

Screenshots

[andrewkroh]

The logic LGTM.

Can we switch the IPs over to ones from the documentation range.

And +1 to json.dump, at least with this I can reason about the format on the basis that I know JSON. One potential issue, assuming I recall correctly, is that json.dump() does not apply consistent ordering. I think it depends on whether the underlying Java Map type is ordered (e.g. LinkedHashMap).

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

🚀 Benchmarks report

To see the full report comment with /test benchmark fullreport

[efd6]

Can we switch the IPs over to ones from the documentation range.

Is this new? I used the IPs that are provided by elastic-package checks, https://github.com/elastic/elastic-package/blob/main/internal/fields/_static/allowed_geo_ips.txt.

[elasticmachine]

💚 Build Succeeded

• Buildkite Build
• Commit: fdbd574

History

• 💚 Build #30220 succeeded 9431cb5

cc @efd6

[elastic-sonarqube]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Fixed issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube

[elasticmachine]

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

[andrewkroh]

The ranges you linked to are still valid, and the documentation ranges are also in the database now (this is newish, I think). If we have a choice, I would always use the reserved ranges for documentation to eliminate any chance of the owner of the non-documentation ranges asking Elastic to remove their personal data. I may be overcorrecting after this year's earlier repo history rewrite.

[elastic-vault-github-plugin-prod]

Package okta - 3.10.2 containing this change is available at https://epr.elastic.co/package/okta/3.10.2/