[#1405] Feature/query filter

[kanchan-dhamane]

Description of the PR

Fixes - #1405

Adds a custom GraphQL directive to filter results using two options contains and startswith
example-

query ArtifactsQ1 {
  artifacts(artifactSpec: {}) @filter(keyName: "digest", operation: STARTSWITH, value: "322") {
    algorithm
    digest
  }
}

[pxp928]

Thanks for the PR @kanchan-dhamane! This is great stuff!

[mihaimaruseac]

This is really great. Thank you!

[kanchan-dhamane]

Thanks @pxp928 and @mihaimaruseac for reviewing the PR. This PR doesn't handle the filter on nested keys. filter on keyName subject.id won't work in the below query. If this is a valid use case, I can look into it.

query GetAllSLSA {
  HasSLSA (hasSLSASpec: {}) @filter(keyName: "subject.id", operation: CONTAINS, value: "710") {
  id
 subject {
    id
    algorithm
    digest
  }
  }
}

[pxp928]

Thanks @pxp928 and @mihaimaruseac for reviewing the PR. This PR doesn't handle the filter on nested keys. filter on keyName subject.id won't work in the below query. If this is a valid use case, I can look into it.

query GetAllSLSA {

  HasSLSA (hasSLSASpec: {}) @filter(keyName: "subject.id", operation: CONTAINS, value: "710") {

  id

 subject {

    id

    algorithm

    digest

  }

  }

}

Hey @kanchan-dhamane! Yes that would be a valid usecase. We can do that in another PR if that is easier.

[mihaimaruseac]

+1 to doing it in a separate PR

[pxp928]

@kanchan-dhamane just need to sign your commits and this will auto-merge.

[kanchan-dhamane]

I've signed the previous commits. Thanks @pxp928!

[pxp928]

Thanks @pxp928 and @mihaimaruseac for reviewing the PR. This PR doesn't handle the filter on nested keys. filter on keyName subject.id won't work in the below query. If this is a valid use case, I can look into it.

query GetAllSLSA {

  HasSLSA (hasSLSASpec: {}) @filter(keyName: "subject.id", operation: CONTAINS, value: "710") {

  id

 subject {

    id

    algorithm

    digest

  }

  }

}

Hey @kanchan-dhamane! Yes that would be a valid usecase. We can do that in another PR if that is easier.

created issue to capture this: #1615