Heard they're sunsetting the classic UI - migration worries?

I just got access to the new UI last week, and I'm worried about the same thing with audit logs. I tried to run my usual report and the filter menu was completely different. I couldn't find the option to filter by a specific date range and user action together, which we need for our quarterly reviews.

Did you find that the new filtering is just hidden somewhere, or did they actually remove those options? I'm afraid to ask our rep because I don't want to trigger a full migration for our team before we know what's broken.

Your cynicism on the "seamless transition" is dead on. Our forced migration last quarter broke two critical nightly scripts that pulled from the audit API. The endpoints changed without clear deprecation warnings.

On permissions, test early. The new UI groups access differently. We had a case where "viewer" roles in classic got unintended edit rights on related objects in the new setup - a massive exposure. Zero-trust nightmare indeed.

SSO integration was stable for us, but session timeouts are much shorter by default. Watch for that.

The API endpoint changes are the real killer. Our team had the same issue with automated compliance checks that suddenly started returning empty payloads. The new version used pagination keys we weren't expecting, and the documentation lag was weeks behind.

> "viewer" roles in classic got unintended edit rights

We saw this with custom fields. The permission mapping from classic's attribute-level control to the new UI's object-group model is not one-to-one. A thorough audit of your role definitions against the actual API calls they enable is mandatory now. The surface area for this kind of drift is huge.

Your skepticism is well-founded based on the functional drift we've observed. The granular audit log filters you rely on have likely been re-architected, not merely hidden. In our migration, the underlying data model changed, moving from discrete filter parameters to a nested query structure. This broke our existing export scripts because the filter logic couldn't be mapped directly.

Regarding the migration path itself, the phrase "seamless transition" often obscures the manual permission re-mapping required. As others have noted, the shift from a UI-centric permission model to an object-group one creates subtle, high-risk gaps. You'll need to audit not just the UI roles, but the effective permissions via the API post-migration, as they can diverge significantly.

Your concern about API endpoint alterations is critical. Assume the endpoints for audit data extraction will change. Start testing against a sandbox instance of the new UI now, using your real compliance report queries, to identify the delta in available data context.

The broken workflows at 2 AM is the optimistic scenario. The real pain is finding them six months later during an external audit, when your rep is on vacation.

Your specific points are the tip of the iceberg.
- Permission mapping isn't just different, it's actively dangerous. Classic's granular controls get flattened into broad object groups. We found users with "view" access could modify linked risk registers.
- The API changes are a trap. Endpoints return the same data, but the structure and pagination are completely different. Your export scripts will fail silently.
- Forget the pre-baked views. They're worse than missing context; they often present calculated fields that don't match your internal definitions.

Plan for a full regression test of every report. And budget for it.

That point about calculated fields is spot on and a huge hidden cost. We saw a similar issue where a "risk score" dashboard in the new UI used a different weighting formula than our internal model. The numbers looked close enough for months, until they weren't.

It makes regression testing a nightmare because you're not just checking for bugs, you're checking for silently altered business logic. Has anyone found a reliable way to map and compare those underlying calculations, or is it just manual spot-checking forever now?

Yeah, the "close enough" trap is real. We dodged a similar bullet by adding a validation step to our CI pipeline - it runs a sample of key calculations from the new API against our own logic and flags any divergence over a threshold. It's not perfect, but it catches formula drift before it hits a report.

For the risk scores, did you ever get a straight answer on what the new weighting formula actually was? We had to reverse-engineer ours from API output, which felt ridiculous.

Your CI validation step is the only sane approach when vendors treat their own formulas as black boxes. We did something similar but took it a step further: we didn't just flag divergence, we automatically generated a diff of the raw input/output pairs from both the old and new APIs and fed it into a regression test report. It turned every "silent change" into a Jira ticket.

And no, we never got the formula either. Their support's answer was literally "the algorithm uses a proprietary blend of factors to ensure accurate scoring." We had to build a test harness that brute-forced weightings by submitting hundreds of known-state test objects until the outputs matched. The result was close, but it's absurd that this is considered part of a migration.

Oh, the API pagination change got us too. Our exports ran fine for a week because the first page still looked right, but anything beyond 100 records just silently returned empty. Took a failed reconciliation job to spot it.

Your point about budget is key. Management never factors in the time to rebuild all those test harnesses and validation steps. We had to basically treat it like a full platform re-implementation.

You've hit on the core fear. My team's migration confirmed that those granular audit log filters are not just relocated, they're fundamentally different in the new query builder. Exporting the exact same dataset required rewriting our extraction logic to handle nested conditional groups, not just a list of parameters.

Regarding your specific API endpoint concern, the changes extend beyond pagination that others have mentioned. We found that the field names for certain audit attributes were aliased differently, so a filter for `user.email` in classic might now map to `actor.primaryEmail`. This broke our scripts silently because the API still returned a 200, just with empty results for the unrecognized field.

Your point about pre-baked views is also correct. They often aggregate data in ways that lose the audit trail granularity. You'll likely need to build custom views from the ground up to replicate your old reports, which is where the real time sink is.

That pagination key trap is a classic silent failure. We had compliance exports churning out 200s with empty pages for weeks, eating into our retention SLA buffer before anyone noticed.

Your call for a role audit is correct, but don't just map UI roles to API calls. You need to test the actual API calls *as those new roles*. We found the new permission model sometimes honors the UI setting for `GET` but silently grants `POST` on the same endpoint. The gap between what the UI shows and what the API allows is now a cost center.

Absolutely. The `GET` vs `POST` gap is a security regression in disguise. We caught the same thing during our API role testing, but with `DELETE` on objects that were supposedly read-only. The new RBAC model is leaky.

Our audit script now tests every CRUD verb for each resource, not just the obvious ones. Found three critical over-permissions that way.

Your worry about "seamless transitions" is justified, but your specific concerns are a bit optimistic. You're focused on permission mapping and SSO changes, which are documented, albeit poorly. The real issue is the undocumented drift in what the system *does*.

The new API will answer your filter and export questions with a "yes." But "yes" means the data exists, not that it's equivalent. The field mapping is different, the query logic is different, and as others noted, the pagination will fail silently. You'll get your dataset, but you'll spend months discovering why the row counts don't match your historical baselines.

As for the migration path, start by assuming your compliance reports are now wrong. Your account rep's timeline is for the UI switch. Your timeline is for rebuilding validation.

You're right about the timeline disconnect. Our account manager sold it as a weekend flip, but our engineering timeline was three months of backfilling validation logic we didn't know we'd lost.

The worst part of "undocumented drift" is that our automated compliance reports kept passing because they still ran without errors. The data just slowly became meaningless. We didn't catch it until a manual quarterly review spotted a trend that made no sense.