Update description of GitLab Duo Vulnerability explanation

What does this MR do?

Update description of GitLab Duo Vulnerability explanation feature in the GraphQL documentation.

Related issues

For the background to this change, see the following discussion thread: #440349 (comment 1771917802)

Author's checklist

• Optional. Consider taking the GitLab Technical Writing Fundamentals course.
• Follow the:
  • Documentation process.
  • Documentation guidelines.
  • Style Guide.
• If you're adding a new page, add the product tier badge under the H1 topic title.
• If you are a GitLab team member, request a review based on:
  • The documentation page's metadata.
  • The associated Technical Writer.

If you are a GitLab team member and only adding documentation, do not add any of the following labels:

• ~"frontend"
• ~"backend"
• ~"type::bug"
• ~"database"

These labels cause the MR to be added to code verification QA issues.

Reviewer's checklist

Documentation-related MRs should be reviewed by a Technical Writer for a non-blocking review, based on Documentation Guidelines and the Style Guide.

If you aren't sure which tech writer to ask, use roulette or ask in the #docs Slack channel.

• If the content requires it, ensure the information is reviewed by a subject matter expert.
• Technical writer review items:
  • Ensure docs metadata is present and up-to-date.
  • Ensure the appropriate labels are added to this MR.
  • Ensure a release milestone is set.
  • If relevant to this MR, ensure content topic type principles are in use, including:
    • The headings should be something you'd do a Google search for. Instead of Default behavior, say something like Default behavior when you close an issue.
    • The headings (other than the page title) should be active. Instead of Configuring GDK, say something like Configure GDK.
    • Any task steps should be written as a numbered list.
    • If the content still needs to be edited for topic types, you can create a follow-up issue with the docs-technical-debt label.
• Review by assigned maintainer, who can always request/require the reviews above. Maintainer's review can occur before or after a technical writer review.

added docsimprovement documentation maintenancerefactor typemaintenance labels

assigned to @rdickenson

added backend label

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

• doc/api/graphql/reference/index.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

• Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
• The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
• Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Reviewer roulette

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	@carlad-gl (UTC+8, 2 hours behind author)	@rodrigo.tomonari (UTC-3, 13 hours behind author)

Please check reviewer's status!

• Reviewer is available!
• Reviewer is unavailable!

Please refer to documentation page for guidance on how you can benefit from the Reviewer Roulette, or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

changed milestone to %16.10

added devopssecure groupthreat insights labels

added sectionsec label

changed the description

added Technical Writing label

mentioned in merge request !144803 (merged)

E2E Test Result Summary

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for 99907fa1

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create      | 8      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 11    | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Package     | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Plan        | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Govern      | 3      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 3     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 21     | 0      | 4       | 0     | 25    | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

@carlad-gl Could you please review this MR, and pass it to a maintainer if you approve?

requested review from @carlad-gl

approved this merge request

requested review from @j.seto and removed review request for @carlad-gl

@carlad-gl, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request has been approved. To ensure we don't only run predictive pipelines, and we don't break master, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

Please wait for the pipeline to start before resolving this discussion and set auto-merge for the new pipeline. See merging a merge request for more details.

added pipeline:mr-approved label

@rdickenson Some end-to-end (E2E) tests should run based on the stage label.

Please start the trigger-omnibus-and-follow-up-e2e job in the qa stage and wait for the tests in the follow-up-e2e:package-and-test-ee pipeline to pass before merging this MR. Do not use Auto-merge, unless these tests have already completed successfully, because a failure in these tests do not block the auto-merge. (E2E tests are computationally intensive and don't run automatically for every push/rebase, so we ask you to run this job manually at least once.)

To run all E2E tests, apply the pipeline:run-all-e2e label and run a new pipeline.

E2E test jobs are allowed to fail due to flakiness. See current failures at the latest pipeline triage issue.

Once done, apply the emoji on this comment.

Team members only: for any questions or help, reach out on the internal #test-platform Slack channel.

approved this merge request

resolved all threads