I’d recommend creating a stream for that specific purpose and allow the non-admin account to access that stream.
If you absolutely want the non-admin account to have access to the universal search (which I wouldn’t recommend), you have to create a role with the permissions searches:absolute, searches:keyword, or searches:relative (depending on what type of search you want to execute).
I applied your first recommendation by creating a stream with a rule that uses “message” as the field with type “field presence” that seems to match the all messages stream. Seems to work from what I see. Would you recommend another route as far as the stream setup. While this works I may be missing a more obvious/efficient method.
That was just an example. That field could easily change based on the data we are trying to pull out. I think I can make this work with your current recommendations. But at the most basic level we were looking to create a single user/role to be able to make those universal queries but not have access to any other admin level access so they couldn’t view or make any changes to any “system” options (authentication,configurations,indices, etc.)in the interface or via API.
Last post withdrawn. Looks as though that didn’t work. I allowed access to “all messages stream” in fact it was already enabled. But still retaining that error when querying that stream for in this case the “user-agent” field.
for the role. Here is a screenshot of that being allowed. BTW this role has ALL streams allowed for both viewing and editing at the moment. This isn’t just a problem for all messages but any stream I try to query as a non admin user. Even though all streams are allowed for users in this role that query regardless of stream will get that auth error.
I got it Jochen. I wasn’t using the filter correctly. Found that Stream:Streamid in the filter works. Thank you for the help on this. Got me down the right path.