[Refactor]: Added tag and datatype in options for query builder

[Rajat-Dabade]

Close #3299
Loom: https://www.loom.com/share/aa61fb1cd97c41eba18b18e095f67588?sid=59117602-790e-47d6-aea6-cbed3fb5d5a5

[nityanandagohain]

LGTM, but check with @pranay01 if we can shift the details to the left. I think that will be better.

[Rajat-Dabade]

@pranay01 this is the possible solution where to show the type and datatype in the option for the select

Option 1:

Option 2:

Option 3:
@suggested by @YounixM

[palashgdev]

✅ 3

[pranay01]

@Rajat-Dabade Lets go with Option 1. I had a discussion with Kaushik earlier on this, and from a UX perspective Option 1 made more sense - option 3 confused user with details on data type when his first objective is to select the right variable

[srikanthccv]

Looking at the code, this is done for the where clause only. There are other filters where we created the tag_/resource_ prefixes. Shouldn't we do the same for aggregate attributes, group by and wherever this was done?

[ankitnayan]

Looking at the code, this is done for the where clause only. There are other filters where we created the tag_/resource_ prefixes. Shouldn't we do the same for aggregate attributes, group by and wherever this was done?

this is already done in the logs detail view. @nityanandagohain what other places needs to be taken care of?

[nityanandagohain]

Yeah it's done in log detail view, I think the groupby and aggreagte attribute field is only left.

[nityanandagohain]

Bumping this, can the changes be aded to groupBY and aggreagte attribute ?

[srikanthccv]

@Rajat-Dabade please add the same to the group by clause everywhere and aggregate attributes for logs and traces only, because the metric name doesn't have any associated type and the data type is always a number.

[srikanthccv]

@nityanandagohain PTAL

[nityanandagohain]

After selecting, the tag prefix should be removed

[Rajat-Dabade]

After selecting, the tag prefix should be removed

@nityanandagohain Done. Please review it once.

[nityanandagohain]

LGTM! But there is another issue where removing field from groupby is slow sometimes, please create a separate for that as it is an existing issue in staging as well.

[srikanthccv]

@YounixM @palashgdev please review this

[Rajat-Dabade]

@YounixM Will take up these changes in subsequent PR.