Adding a get status API

[amitgalitz]

Description

Currently implemented so when not given _all=true the response is:

{
    {
    "workflow_id": "fJTmz4sBVvQ80zEwbS1x",
    "state": "COMPLETED",
    "resources_created": [
        {
            "workflow_step_name": "create_connector",
            "resource_id": "fZTmz4sBVvQ80zEwkC2z"
        }
    ]
}
}

when: /_plugins/_flow_framework/workflow/yfRsposBMbAFAhZEJ1qE/_status?all=true
then response includes all of state index like this:

{
    "workflow_id": "fJTmz4sBVvQ80zEwbS1x",
    "state": "COMPLETED",
    "provisioning_progress": "DONE",
    "provision_start_time": 1700000075690,
    "provision_end_time": 1700000076398,
    "resources_created": [
        {
            "workflow_step_name": "create_connector",
            "resource_id": "fZTmz4sBVvQ80zEwkC2z"
        }
    ]
}

Currently GC content (template) is not embedded within response, added some of the prerequisites for that but not fully implemented, can be done when GET workflow API is complete.

Additional Issues highlighting further work:#136 -> This PR adds the resources created addition logic to create_connector, following PR will add the work for each step.

#171 -> adding the full template in the status response as well to help with faster frontend fetching

Issues Resolved

Closes #22

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[joshpalis]

Initial pass, looks good so far, a couple of comments mostly on naming.

[owaiskazi19]

Initial pass. Need tests

[ohltyler]

Typically params don't have the _ prefix - suggest to change _all -> all

[ohltyler]

Typically params don't have the _ prefix - suggest to change _all -> all

I see this is covered - thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 132 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (56ccb1d) 68.39% compared to head (2fa6fd1) 72.11%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 2fa6fd1 differs from pull request most recent head a6b4dee. Consider uploading reports for the commit a6b4dee to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ramework/transport/GetWorkflowTransportAction.java	38.70%	19 Missing ⚠️
...framework/indices/FlowFrameworkIndicesHandler.java	0.00%	18 Missing ⚠️
.../opensearch/flowframework/model/WorkflowState.java	58.97%	13 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...rk/transport/ProvisionWorkflowTransportAction.java	23.80%	16 Missing ⚠️
...arch/flowframework/rest/RestGetWorkflowAction.java	53.12%	14 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...a/org/opensearch/flowframework/model/Template.java	77.04%	13 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ensearch/flowframework/model/ResourcesCreated.java	73.52%	8 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ch/flowframework/workflow/CreateConnectorStep.java	65.21%	8 Missing ⚠️
...flowframework/workflow/RegisterLocalModelStep.java	91.25%	4 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...lowframework/workflow/RegisterRemoteModelStep.java	87.50%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
... and 5 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #148      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     68.39%   72.11%   +3.71%     
- Complexity      339      406      +67     
============================================
  Files            45       53       +8     
  Lines          1585     1947     +362     
  Branches        143      164      +21     
============================================
+ Hits           1084     1404     +320     
- Misses          452      472      +20     
- Partials         49       71      +22     

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

[owaiskazi19]

Another pass

[owaiskazi19]

@amitgalitz resource created should have the exact entry we have for WorkflowData

createConnectorFuture.complete(
                    new WorkflowData(Map.ofEntries(Map.entry("connector_id", mlCreateConnectorResponse.getConnectorId())))
                );

 "resources_created": [
        {
            "workflow_step_name": "create_connector",
            "resource_id": "fZTmz4sBVvQ80zEwkC2z",
            "connector_id": "XYZ"
        }
    ]

[amitgalitz]

@amitgalitz resource created should have the exact entry we have for WorkflowData

createConnectorFuture.complete(
                    new WorkflowData(Map.ofEntries(Map.entry("connector_id", mlCreateConnectorResponse.getConnectorId())))
                );

 "resources_created": [
        {
            "workflow_step_name": "create_connector",
            "resource_id": "fZTmz4sBVvQ80zEwkC2z",
            "connector_id": "XYZ"
        }
    ]

resource_id and connector_id are the same here

[owaiskazi19]

resource_id and connector_id are the same here

then let's call it connector_id

[amitgalitz]

resource_id and connector_id are the same here

then let's call it connector_id

I want it to be static field though so its cleaner on searching and mapping, the keys of resource_id and workflow_step_name wont change between resources. If you still think otherwise thats fair, more info here: #136. This also might have some small changes as Dan implements the delete api.

[dbwiddis]

Generally looks good, but need to understand more about how the id String tells me what sort of resource I will need to remove later.

Are we assuming a one-to-one correspondence between workflow step and resource? I'm not sure how certain that assumption is.

[dbwiddis]

LGTM with pending TODO handled in another PR

[ohltyler]

Read latest updates and comments, no concerns. Giving a soft approval :)