Conversation
✅ Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.
💻 Catch issues earlier using the plugins for VS Code, JetBrains IDEs, Visual Studio, and Eclipse. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Updates the details reducer and accompanying mock payload to match the newer indicators response shape (array of indicator objects) and reduce what is passed through to the UI.
Changes:
- Simplifies
reducers/details.jsonby removing the prior deep indicator hit/source transformations and replacing them with a smaller set of dropped indicator fields. - Updates
mocks/details.jsonto provideindicatorsas an array withlatest_sightingand related fields.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| reducers/details.json | Reworks the details reducer pipeline for indicators and prunes unused fields. |
| mocks/details.json | Updates mock “details” payload to the new indicators array structure. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
reducers/details.json
Outdated
| "reduced_results.indicators[].id", | ||
| "reduced_results.indicators[].sort_date", | ||
| "reduced_results.indicators[].platform_urls", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reducer is dropping reduced_results.indicators[].id, but the UI relies on indicator.id to fetch indicator details (GET_INDICATOR_DETAILS in client/block.js). Removing it will break the “View Sighting, Related IOCs, and Mitre ATT&CK” flow. Keep id in the reduced indicator objects (and consider keeping platform_urls as the template uses it for the “View in Flashpoint” link).
| "reduced_results.indicators[].id", | |
| "reduced_results.indicators[].sort_date", | |
| "reduced_results.indicators[].platform_urls", | |
| "reduced_results.indicators[].sort_date", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sarus For me makes sense the above comment. I updated the changes to keep the id and platform urls. what do you think?
mocks/details.json
Outdated
| "description": "Simulated sighting: suspicious DNS request [2026-02-26T08:31:10.111Z]", | ||
| "href": "https://api.flashpoint.io/technical-intelligence/v2/sightings/AtlBmYHSXzeJXShr2MdqKA", | ||
| "id": "AtlBmYHSXzeJXShr2MdqKA", | ||
| "sighted_at": "2026-02-26T08:29:34.054000Z", | ||
| "source": "mock_dns_sensor", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
latest_sighting.description contains a timestamp (2026-02-26T08:31:10.111Z) that doesn’t match the latest_sighting.sighted_at value (2026-02-26T08:29:34.054000Z). Align these in the mock data to avoid confusing UI output and future tests that may assert on timestamps.
mocks/details.json
Outdated
| "description": "Simulated sighting: outbound callback pattern [2026-02-26T08:35:54.900Z]", | ||
| "href": "https://api.flashpoint.io/technical-intelligence/v2/sightings/AtlBmYHSXzeJXShr2MdqKA", | ||
| "id": "AtlBmYHSXzeJXShr2MdqKA", | ||
| "sighted_at": "2026-02-26T08:29:34.054000Z", | ||
| "source": "mock_network_collector", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
latest_sighting.description includes 2026-02-26T08:35:54.900Z but latest_sighting.sighted_at is 2026-02-26T08:29:34.054000Z. For consistency in the mock payload, update one of these so the description timestamp matches the actual sighted_at.
No description provided.