LookupVindex: Multiple lookup tables support for LookupVindexCreate

[beingnoble03]

Description

• This PR adds support for backfilling multiple lookup tables using a single VReplication workflow
• To provide params for multiple lookup vindexes, a flag params-file is added in create command. The sample JSON file is given below. We will throw error if the command includes both params-file and other vindex-param flags.
• This PR also includes changes for externalize, internalize and complete command of LookupVindex.
• To identify the lookup vindexes that are being backfilled by the workflow, LookupVindexes has been added to the WorkflowOptions. To support old behaviour, we find empty LookupVindexes slice from options, we assume that the name of lookup vindex is same as workflow name.
• Unit tests for multiple lookup vindexes case for LookupVindexCreate, LookupVindexExternalize, LookupVindexInternalize, LookupVindexComplete are added.
• Docs PR: docs: Multiple LookupVindex create changes website#1964

Testing

LookupVindex command:

vtctldclient --server localhost:15999 LookupVindex --name "lookup_workflow1" --table-keyspace customer create --keyspace="customer" --params-file="vindex_params.json"

vindex_params.json file:

{
    "corder_lookup": {
        "lookup_vindex_type": "consistent_lookup_unique",
        "table_owner": "corder",
        "table_owner_columns": [
            "sku"
        ]
    },
    "customer_lookup": {
        "lookup_vindex_type": "consistent_lookup_unique",
        "table_owner": "customer",
        "table_owner_columns": [
            "email"
        ]
    }
}

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Feature Request: CreateLookupVindex for multiple lookup tables #14017

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 65.27778% with 150 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.49%. Comparing base (4399cbc) to head (a4dc1cf).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../command/vreplication/lookupvindex/lookupvindex.go	1.96%	100 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/lookup_vindex.go	83.94%	48 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtctl/workflow/server.go	93.54%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17566      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.51%   67.49%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1601     1601              
  Lines      261576   262037     +461     
==========================================
+ Hits       176614   176867     +253     
- Misses      84962    85170     +208     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mattlord]

IMO we should not allow people to create workflows that they cannot finish (cancel, externalize, complete). I think that it should be done all at once.

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Nice work. Let's immediately update the website docs for this.

[rohit-nayak-ps]

Shouldn't "from" refer to a column in the source table?

[beingnoble03]

yeah, but I don't think it matters here, since we anyway expect the same in wantvschema. but, updated it since it should be reasonable in unit tests. also, pushed better query matching with expectVRQuery (please have a look at f522479)

[beingnoble03]

Here's the docs PR: vitessio/website#1964