chore(detectors): Update feedback for experimental issues

[roggenkemper]

updates the feedback button for detected issues on the issue details page to support N+1 API Calls.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #99550   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   81.22%   81.22%           
=======================================
  Files        8590     8590           
  Lines      380349   380345    -4     
  Branches    24128    24127    -1     
=======================================
- Hits       308944   308942    -2     
+ Misses      71042    71040    -2     
  Partials      363      363           

[JoshFerge]

nice! would it be possible to mark groups with an experimental flag that gets returned to the client which we could rely on, vs hardcoding each issue type in the UI?

[cursor]

Bug: Query Injection Documentation Link Missing

The refactoring removed the dedicated "Learn more about the query injection issue" link from the issue details header. Query injection vulnerabilities previously always displayed this specific documentation link. Now, that link is gone, and the header instead shows either a generic feedback button (if available) or a different button, removing important educational content.

 

[seer-by-sentry]

Potential bug: The code calls .includes() on organization.features, which can be undefined from an API response, leading to a TypeError and component crash.

• Description: The code directly accesses organization.features.includes() to check for a feature flag. Although the TypeScript type for organization.features is string[], repository-specific documentation explicitly warns that API responses may omit this field, resulting in an undefined value on the client. This will cause a TypeError: Cannot read property 'includes' of undefined', which will crash the issue details header component. The existence of defensive checks like organization.features?.includes()` in other parts of the codebase confirms this is a known, real-world scenario that needs to be handled.

• Suggested fix: Add a defensive check before calling .includes(). Use optional chaining (organization.features?.includes(...)) or the nullish coalescing operator ((organization.features ?? []).includes(...)) to provide a default empty array if features is undefined.
  _{severity: 0.65, confidence: 0.95}

_{Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.}

[roggenkemper]

nice! would it be possible to mark groups with an experimental flag that gets returned to the client which we could rely on, vs hardcoding each issue type in the UI?

i think that would be great - definitely something I'll take a look at when we cleanup some of the code in the backend