Add user mapping to Workflow State index

[dbwiddis]

Description

Adds the missing mapping for the user field. (Copy/paste from same field in the template mapping.)

Issues Resolved

Fixes #700

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.44%. Comparing base (3318d31) to head (9717188).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 9717188 differs from pull request most recent head c66a1ad. Consider uploading reports for the commit c66a1ad to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #705      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     74.36%   74.44%   +0.08%     
  Complexity      738      738              
============================================
  Files            83       83              
  Lines          3741     3741              
  Branches        322      322              
============================================
+ Hits           2782     2785       +3     
+ Misses          815      811       -4     
- Partials        144      145       +1     

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

[amitgalitz]

So for this case the bwc could be a little different. Since we are only changing the mapping here I think where this would have an effect is in some sort of rollover, where we are creating the index again based of the new mapping. Would that be the only case here also in your opinion?

[dbwiddis]

So for this case the bwc could be a little different. Since we are only changing the mapping here

I don't think we're changing the mapping. The source stored in the index will be identical. We're just documenting the mapping in the index metadata to permit clients to directly act on the source fields rather than having to parse it first.

I think where this would have an effect is in some sort of rollover

This is a system index, so we're not rolling it over. The concern here would be an index that already exists with the previous mapping; we would update the mapping with the new one which our code does if the versions differ (which reminds me, I should have incremented the mapping version, so that's a needed change here).

Would that be the only case here also in your opinion?

The only case I see this being relevant is an upgrade from 2.12-2.14 to 2.15 or later, when the index metadata would be updated.

[amitgalitz]

LGTM, lets add a TODO or issue to have bwc with security enabled added and general increase of coverage with security

[dbwiddis]

LGTM, lets add a TODO or issue to have bwc with security enabled added and general increase of coverage with security

#710