Protect: Separate scan results and history DataViews

[dkmyta]

Description

• Restores a dedicated history route and integrates a unique ThreatsDataViews instance for scan history.

Other information:

• Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
• Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
• Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

• https://github.com/Automattic/jetpack-scan-team/issues/1619

Does this pull request change what data or activity we track or use?

• No

Testing instructions:

• Review ThreatsDataViews storybooks
• Run this branch of Protect using the beta tester
• Ensure that you can easily toggle between active and historic threats
• Verify that /scan, /scan/history, /scan/history/fixed, /scan/history/ignored update the UI correctly
• Ensure no regressions are introduced

Screenshots

[github-actions]

Are you an Automattician? Please test your changes on all WordPress.com environments to help mitigate accidental explosions.

• To test on WoA, go to the Plugins menu on a WordPress.com Simple site. Click on the "Upload" button and follow the upgrade flow to be able to upload, install, and activate the Jetpack Beta plugin. Once the plugin is active, go to Jetpack > Jetpack Beta, select your plugin, and enable the update/protect/separate-scan-and-history-dataviews branch.

  • For jetpack-mu-wpcom changes, also add define( 'JETPACK_MU_WPCOM_LOAD_VIA_BETA_PLUGIN', true ); to your wp-config.php file.

• To test on Simple, run the following command on your sandbox:

  bin/jetpack-downloader test jetpack update/protect/separate-scan-and-history-dataviews
  

  bin/jetpack-downloader test jetpack-mu-wpcom-plugin update/protect/separate-scan-and-history-dataviews
  

Interested in more tips and information?

• In your local development environment, use the jetpack rsync command to sync your changes to a WoA dev blog.
• Read more about our development workflow here: PCYsg-eg0-p2
• Figure out when your changes will be shipped to customers here: PCYsg-eg5-p2

[github-actions]

Thank you for your PR!

When contributing to Jetpack, we have a few suggestions that can help us test and review your patch:

• ✅ Include a description of your PR changes.
  
• ✅ Add a "[Status]" label (In Progress, Needs Team Review, ...).
  
• 🔴 Add a "[Type]" label (Bug, Enhancement, Janitorial, Task).
  
• ✅ Add testing instructions.
  
• ✅ Specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy.
  
• 🔴 Add changelog entries to affected projects
  

This comment will be updated as you work on your PR and make changes. If you think that some of those checks are not needed for your PR, please explain why you think so. Thanks for cooperation 🤖

---

The e2e test report can be found here. Please note that it can take a few minutes after the e2e tests checks are complete for the report to be available.

---

🔴 Action required: Please add missing changelog entries for the following projects: projects/js-packages/components, projects/plugins/protect

Use the Jetpack CLI tool to generate changelog entries by running the following command: jetpack changelog add.
Guidelines: /docs/writing-a-good-changelog-entry.md

---

Follow this PR Review Process:

1. Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
2. Choose a review path based on your changes:
   • A. Team Review: add the "[Status] Needs Team Review" label
     • For most changes, including minor cross-team impacts.
     • Example: Updating a team-specific component or a small change to a shared library.
   • B. Crew Review: add the "[Status] Needs Review" label
     • For significant changes to core functionality.
     • Example: Major updates to a shared library or complex features.
   • C. Both: Start with Team, then request Crew
     • For complex changes or when you need extra confidence.
     • Example: Refactor affecting multiple systems.
3. Get at least one approval before merging.

Still unsure? Reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

---

Protect plugin:

• Next scheduled release: none scheduled.

If you have any questions about the release process, please ask in the #jetpack-releases channel on Slack.

[nateweller]

What do you think about using a const type for this prop, something like type: 'current' | 'historic'?

Motivation being to keep things flexible for the future.

[nateweller]

Suggested change

	( value: string ) => {
	( value: 'active' | 'historic' ) => {

[nateweller]

(IIRC, the threat status value used is "current", we could potentially use that here for consistency)

[nateweller]

Looking good and testing great so far 👍

This PR really bakes-in the boolean "is current or is historic" pattern, which I recognize matches the current implementation plans in Protect, but I think it is possible to achieve the two table integration without adding this specific logic to the <ThreatsDataViews> component (and beyond):

The main variation between the two tables is the fields/columns - could we allow the package consumer to specify specific table presets?

import ThreatsDataViews, { HISTORIC_TABLE_FIELDS } from '@...';

export const ThreatsHistory = () => {
    return <ThreatsDataViews fields={ HISTORIC_TABLE_FIELDS } />;
};

Interested on your take!