[Ingest Manager] [Discuss] success property in API responses

[jfsiii]

After some searching, ${API_ROOT}/check-permissions is the only route I can find where an API response has success: false at the top-level.

The other 30+ success: booleans seem to only be success: true. Our tests seem to only include the true case and after confirming a 200 response.

success: false is not in many (most? any?) errors. We don't include it in our response.customError or response.notFound options and it's not included by the platform.

e.g. 404

> curl http://localhost:5601/api/ingest_manager/fleet/enrollment-api-keys/missing-key-id --user elastic:changeme
{"statusCode":404,"error":"Not Found","message":"EnrollmentAPIKey missing-key-id not found"}

> curl http://localhost:5601/api/ingest_manager/package_configs/missing-key-id --user elastic:changeme
{"statusCode":404,"error":"Not Found","message":"Package config missing-key-id not found"}

> curl http://localhost:5601/api/ingest_manager/fleet/agents/missing-key-id --user elastic:changeme
{"statusCode":404,"error":"Not Found","message":"Agent missing-key-id not found"}

I see some references to it in the client-side code but I haven't dug into them. Perhaps they never receive false. These could/would be updated to use try/catch for await or the .catch if using the Promise.

Questions

Do we need/want this property?

Should we add more success: false or can we remove it as a default/required top-level response property?

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/ingest-management (Team:Ingest Management)

[nchaulet]

I am in favor if removing it. Relying on status code is probably a lot better (and we are already doing it)

[jfsiii]

I opened a draft PR after doing a find/replace for all but check-permissions #73223

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/endpoint-management (Team:Endpoint Management)

[paul-tavares]

Did a quick search in security_solution code base and did not see anything on our end that seems to be using t. Looks like your PR already accounts for updating our mocks 👍

[jfsiii]

Closing the discussion part of this. Implementation started in #73223