feat: operators can prefix elasticsearch indexes for multi-tenancy

[keithgg]

Description

Adds a new configuration setting, ELASTICSEARCH_INDEX_PREFIX. If set, all Elasticsearch indexes and aliases that are generated by the application begin with the prefix.

This is to enable multi-tenancy, so that more than one version of this application can run on an ElasticSearch deployment.

Testing instructions

When testing this, be sure to clear out your current tutor install beforehand (tutor local stop and rm -r ~/.local/share/tutor)

• Update your tutor version to at least 14.2.0: pip install --upgrade tutor[full]
• Install the tutor-forum plugin: pip install git+https://github.com/open-craft/tutor-forum@keith/prefix-elasticsearch-indexes
• Enable the plugin tutor plugins enable forum

• tutor config save --set ELASTICSEARCH_INDEX_PREFIX=starting_ \
     --set FORUM_REPOSITORY=https://github.com/open-craft/cs_comments_service.git \
     --set FORUM_RELEASE="keith/prefix-elasticsearch-indexes"
  

• tutor images build forum to build the forum image
• tutor local quickstart Create a tutor local install
• Verify that all indices contain the prefix starting_

  docker exec -it tutor_local-elasticsearch-1 curl http://localhost:9200/_cat/indices
  yellow open starting_comment_threads_20221212091447199 f7pYo7oDRGWWXgwxGDQoAQ 1 1 0 0 208b 208b
  yellow open starting_comments_20221212091450166        EGE-6_FpROGpDHUGXhy0ag 1 1 0 0 208b 208b
  yellow open starting_comments_20221212091447199        hXu_pX-cQ4eawUrNXYu3vg 1 1 0 0 208b 208b
  yellow open starting_comment_threads_20221212091450166 3pTwlphYQKKMCQuQMmTO9w 1 1 0 0 208b 208b
  

• Verify that all aliases begin with the prefix starting_

  docker exec -it tutor_local-elasticsearch-1 curl http://localhost:9200/_cat/aliases
  starting_comments        starting_comments_20221212103600407        - - - -
  starting_comment_threads starting_comment_threads_20221212103600407 - - - -
  

Other information

I couldn't run the tests locally as the test documentation is outdated due to #392. If upstream confirms this is a worthwhile addition, I'll add tests.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @keithgg! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum threads
• timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
• partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
• any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[gabor-boros]

@keithgg This is good to go from my side. 👍 🎉

• I tested what's in the test instructions
• I read through the code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.01 🎉

Comparison is base (8951368) 96.10% compared to head (e6a6009) 96.12%.

❗ Current head e6a6009 differs from pull request most recent head d997705. Consider uploading reports for the commit d997705 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #404      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.10%   96.12%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          58       58              
  Lines        4550     4568      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         4373     4391      +18     
  Misses        177      177              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
app.rb	89.28% <ø> (ø)
api/search.rb	98.18% <100.00%> (ø)
lib/task_helpers.rb	80.57% <100.00%> (+0.14%)	⬆️
models/comment.rb	88.09% <100.00%> (+0.19%)	⬆️
models/comment_thread.rb	92.00% <100.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
spec/lib/task_helpers_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
spec/lib/tasks/search_rake_spec.rb	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[itsjeyd]

Thanks for enabling tests here, @e0d!

@keithgg Before we put this up for review could you please fix the failing check?

[keithgg]

Thank for checking @itsjeyd. It's a coverage issue so I need to add more tests.

[keithgg]

@e0d I've added some tests for the methods I added. Do you mind enabling the tests here again?

[e0d]

@keithgg I've approved the tests again.

[itsjeyd]

Hey @asadazam93, would it be possible for you to help us get this PR lined up for engineering review by the Infinity team?

[asadazam93]

@keithgg is this also supported by AWS open search?

[keithgg]

@asadazam93 It should be, because I'm making use of features that have been part of ElasticSearch since before the split. That being said, I haven't tested it with OpenSearch. Would you like me to?

Note: I've put this in Draft mode, because I have a much simpler implementation that I'm testing, which should be done later today.

Update: New changes are live. The implementation is much simpler now, negating the need to modify the functions within task_helper.rb

[e0d]

@mtyaka making sure that you see that there were some coverage issues.

[keithgg]

Thank you @e0d. I'll sort them out on Monday.

Update: The coverage issue is in app.rb which isn't reloaded by the tests so it's a little bit tricky to fix without mangling code in other places.

I'll spend more time on it in my current sprint.

[itsjeyd]

Hey @keithgg, when do you expect to be getting back to this PR?

[keithgg]

Hi @e0d, do you mind kicking off the tests here? They should pass now.

[e0d]

@keithgg tests running.

[itsjeyd]

@asadazam93 We've got a green build here so this is ready for engineering review by your team.

[itsjeyd]

@keithgg Looks like this will need a rebase.

@asadazam93 If you could provide a rough estimate on when this PR might get a review, that would be great :)

[asadazam93]

@keithgg I just have one concern. It would be great if you can test this out with open search. Rest looks good to me

[keithgg]

Thanks @asadazam93. I'll test on OpenSearch and confirm if it's working as intended.

[e0d]

@keithgg looks like there are some test failures.

[keithgg]

@asadazam93 I tested the changes on the latest OpenSearch 2.6.0 and it works as expected.

@e0d I think that's a flaky test. I've experienced some intermittent test failures on master as well. Haven't been able to figure it out as it usually passes on the next run. I've pushed an empty commit. Do you mind kicking them off again?

[openedx-webhooks]

@keithgg 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.