URI parts ingest processor

[danhermann]

Adds a new uri_parts processor that decomposes a URI into its constituent parts. E.g.:

POST _ingest/pipeline/_simulate?verbose
{
  "pipeline": {
    "processors": [
      {
        "url_parts": {
          "field": "uri_field",
          "target_field": "url",
          "keep_original": true,
          "remove_if_successful": true
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "docs": [
    {
      "_source": {
        "uri_field": "http://user:pw@www.google.com:80/blarg.gif#ref"
      }
    }
  ]
}

results in:

"processor_type" : "uri_parts",
"status" : "success",
"doc" : {
  "_index" : "_index",
  "_id" : "_id",
  "_source" : {
    "url" : {
      "path" : "/blarg.gif",
      "fragment" : "ref",
      "extension" : "gif",
      "password" : "pw",
      "original" : "http://user:pw@www.google.com:80/blarg.gif#ref",
      "scheme" : "http",
      "port" : 80,
      "user_info" : "user:pw",
      "domain" : "www.google.com",
      "username" : "user"
    }
  }

The processor relies on the java.net.URI class to parse the URI and attempts to map the parts into ECS fields. Some ECS fields are not part of the URI spec, so see the table below for how those are handled:

URL Parts Processor	ECS	java.net.URI	Comments
domain	url.domain	getHost()
extension	url.extension		This is not part of the URI spec and is manually parsed out of the path element on a best-effort basis if a . exists in the path
fragment	url.fragment	getFragment()
	url.full
original	url.original		The processor includes an option to retain the original URL
password	url.password		The URI spec defines an "authority" field but does not define either username or password though they are commonly presented with the username:password convention. The username and password fields are parsed out of the user_info field on a best-effort basis if a : exists.
path	url.path	getPath()
port	url.port	getPort()
query	url.query	getQuery()
	url.registered_domain
scheme	url.scheme	getProtocol()
	url.top_level_domain
username	url.username		See comment on password above
user_info		getUserInfo()	Corresponds to the "authority" field of the URI spec without the domain

Also introduces a new module for ingest processors.

Closes #57481

[elasticmachine]

Pinging @elastic/es-core-features (Team:Core/Features)

[danhermann]

@leehinman and @andrewkroh, I would be interested in your feedback (and/or others, as appropriate) on whether this provides the functionality you described in #57481.

[andrewkroh]

Nice, this will make writing pipelines simpler for us.

[andrewkroh]

Are there limitations on which schemes that this can parse? Would these parse?

• ftp://ftp.is.co.za/rfc/rfc1808.txt
• ldap://[2001:db8::7]/c=GB?objectClass?one
• telnet://192.0.2.16:80/

Perhaps using java.net.URI would be more forgiving and not require a URLStreamHandler to be loaded.

[andrewkroh]

Similarly parts of the URL are required for parsing to work?

[danhermann]

@andrewkroh, thanks for looking it over and commenting. I switched over to java.net.URI which does support more schemes including all three of the examples you list above.

Right now, no parts of a URI are required beyond what java.net.URI needs to construct an instance. Is that what you would prefer?

[andrewkroh]

ECS isn't clear on what's correct here, but what does getHost return for bracked IPv6 addresses?

@elastic/ecs Should url.domain include the brackets that are required when using IPv6 addresses in URLs? https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2732.txt

[ebeahan]

Per this source, getHost() will return the IPv6 address enclosed in the brackets.

Since brackets are required with a literal IPv6 address, url.domain should include the brackets. We can improve the description of url.domain in the ECS docs to clarify.

[andrewkroh]

LGTM. 👍

[webmat]

This is great @danhermann 👍

Note that I think it's fine if this processor doesn't populate the domain breakdown fields url.registered_domain and url.top_level_domain. Properly populating those to consider all the edge case effective TLDs requires lookups in a DB like Mozilla's. Which I think should be a distinct processor (like Beat's), and is therefore out of scope here.

[andrewkroh]

There's a request for a registered domain processor (#57476). Perhaps if that gets implemented this one could internally use it.

[danhermann]

There's a request for a registered domain processor (#57476). Perhaps if that gets implemented this one could internally use it.

I can add that on this processor as an option once the registered domain processor is completed.

[danhermann]

Last functional question on this one -- should the processor be renamed to uri_parts since it's parsing schemes that aren't supported by the URL spec?

Edit: Though I do see that the ECS field names are all prefixed with url rather than uri. 😦

[leehinman]

This is awesome. Thank You.

[webmat]

should the processor be renamed to uri_parts

I don't really mind either way, but I think it'll indeed be clearer to users that they can use it on all sorts of URIs if it's named uri_parts. So I'd be in favor of that :-)

[danhermann]

@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/2

[danhermann]

cc: @elastic/es-ui in case Kibana auto-complete needs to be updated with this new processor.

[andreidan]

LGTM, thanks for adding this processor @danhermann

Left a minor comment

[andreidan]

would this fail with IndexOutOfBounds for http://user:@www.google.com:80/blarg.gif#ref ? (no password)
Shall we add a test for this?

[danhermann]

In that case, the password is set to an empty string. I'll add another test case to make that clear.

[danhermann]

Thanks for the review, @andreidan!

[alisonelizabeth]

cc: @elastic/es-ui in case Kibana auto-complete needs to be updated with this new processor.

Thanks for the heads up @danhermann! I've opened elastic/kibana#83915 to add support for this in the UI.