<!--- Please read this! Before opening a new issue, make sure to search for keywords in the issues filtered by the "regression" or "type::bug" label: - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues?label_name%5B%5D=regression - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues?label_name%5B%5D=type::bug and verify the issue you're about to submit isn't a duplicate. ---> ### Summary Per the GraphQL API spec for [`ComplianceRequirementsControlInput`](https://docs.gitlab.com/api/graphql/reference/#compliancerequirementscontrolinput) only the the `name` field is required. This makes sense because the minimum use case is adding an _existing_ control to a requirement, and the control IDs (passed in as "name" for this input type) are unique identifiers for the controls. However, attempting to follow the spec while adding an existing, internal control to a requirement results in the error message: `"Failed to add compliance requirement control default_branch_protected: Validation failed: Expression can't be blank"` ### Steps to reproduce 1. via [graphql-explorer](https://gitlab.com/-/graphql-explorer) try the mutation `createComplianceRequirementsControl` or `updateComplianceRequirement` specifying only the unique "name" value for an existing, internal control. 1. for example: (change the framework ID to an existing one in your scope) ```graphql mutation { createComplianceRequirement( input: { complianceFrameworkId: "gid://gitlab/ComplianceManagement::Framework/1", controls: [{ name: "default_branch_protected", }], params: {} } ) { errors requirement { id name description complianceRequirementsControls { nodes { id name controlType expression } } } } } ``` ### Example Project <!--If possible, please create an example project here on GitLab.com that exhibits the problematic behavior, and link to it here in the bug report. If you are using an older version of GitLab, this will also determine whether the bug is fixed in a more recent version.--> ### What is the current _bug_ behavior? An error is returned from from the GraphQL API: ```json { "data": { "createComplianceRequirement": { "errors": [ "Failed to add compliance requirement control default_branch_protected: Validation failed: Expression can't be blank" ], "requirement": null } }, "correlationId": "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" } ``` ### What is the expected _correct_ behavior? - Given a valid and existing `ComplianceRequirementsControlInput.controls[i].name` value (a `ControlExpression.id`), the existing Compliance Control should be added to the specified Compliance Requirement. - A matching`ComplianceRequirementsControlInput.controls[i].expression` value should **NOT** be required. ### Relevant logs and/or screenshots <!--Paste any relevant logs - please use code blocks (```) to format console output, logs, and code as it's tough to read otherwise.--> ### Output of checks <!--If you are reporting a bug on GitLab.com, uncomment below--> This bug happens on GitLab.com <!--and uncomment below if you have /label privileges--> <!--or follow up with an issue comment of `@gitlab-bot label ~"reproduced on GitLab.com"` if you do not--> #### Results of GitLab environment info <!--Input any relevant GitLab environment information if needed.--> <details> <summary>Expand for output related to GitLab environment info</summary> <pre> (For installations with omnibus-gitlab package run and paste the output of: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:env:info\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`) (For installations from source run and paste the output of: \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`sudo -u git -H bundle exec rake gitlab:env:info RAILS_ENV=production\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`) </pre> </details> #### Results of GitLab application Check <!--Input any relevant GitLab application check information if needed.--> <details> <summary>Expand for output related to the GitLab application check</summary> <pre> (For installations with omnibus-gitlab package run and paste the output of: \\\\\\\`sudo gitlab-rake gitlab:check SANITIZE=true\\\\\\\`) (For installations from source run and paste the output of: \\\\\\\`sudo -u git -H bundle exec rake gitlab:check RAILS_ENV=production SANITIZE=true\\\\\\\`) (we will only investigate if the tests are passing) </pre> </details> ### Possible fixes <!--If you can, link to the line of code that might be responsible for the problem.--> The following line appears to enforce the presence of the `expression` field if the `control_type` is `internal` (default). https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/ee/app/models/compliance_management/compliance_framework/compliance_requirements_control.rb?ref_type=heads#L37 If so, I'd propose the `validates_presence_of :expression, if: :internal?` line be removed. #### Reasoning The current use case for the built-in, "internal" compliance controls is simply to add them to compliance requirements. Users cannot (and probably should not) modify the "internal" controls--so requiring an `expression` here has no purpose. Even if users could modify the internal controls in the future, the use case of adding the existing controls would still be the primary use case. Requiring both the `name` and `expression` field to simply add the existing control to a requirement seems fraught with misconfiguration risk resulting in validation failures; or worse, _unintended changes to the `expression` value._ ### Patch release information for backports If the bug fix needs to be backported in a [patch release](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/releases/patch-releases) to a version under [the maintenance policy](https://docs.gitlab.com/policy/maintenance/), please follow the steps on the [patch release runbook for GitLab engineers](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release/docs/-/blob/master/general/patch/engineers.md). Refer to the [internal "Release Information" dashboard](https://dashboards.gitlab.net/d/delivery-release_info/delivery3a-release-information?orgId=1) for information about the next patch release, including the targeted versions, expected release date, and current status. #### High-severity bug remediation To remediate high-severity issues requiring an [internal release](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/releases/internal-releases/) for single-tenant SaaS instances, refer to the [internal release process for engineers](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/release/docs/-/blob/master/general/internal-releases/engineers.md?ref_type=heads). <!--If you don't have /label privileges, follow up with an issue comment of `@gitlab-bot label ~"type::bug"`-->