Id or inputspec

[pxp928]

Description of the PR

Fixes issue #1261 and updates the keyvalue backend to use noun IDs else use the inputspec for Verb ingestion.

Updates the assembler (bulk and single ingestion) to update the IDorInputSpec for each noun with its IDs before passing them to the verbs to be used.

NOTE: The backends must ensure that the IDs are returned in the same order as the array of InputSpecs, added comments on noun ingestion to call this out.

This PR also deletes all the old unit tests for each backend, in favor of the centralized test suite.

Updates still need to be made on the arango and ent backend. Backend test suite needs to be updated to include ingested noun IDs in verb ingestion.

PR Checklist

• All commits have a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) -- they are generated using -s flag to git commit.
• All new changes are covered by tests
• If GraphQL schema is changed, make generate has been run
• If OpenAPI spec is changed, make generate has been run
• If collectsub protobuf has been changed, make proto has been run
• All CI checks are passing (tests and formatting)
• All dependent PRs have already been merged

[pxp928]

Working to fix up the failing tests

[pxp928]

Ready for review

[pxp928]

@mrizzi FYI. Will need to make some updates on the ENT backend for this to be fully utilized. I will start some of the work today and we can sync up on it.

[mihaimaruseac]

I'm wondering, wouldn't it be better to make the input specs have an ID field and remove the !s and move the requirement for the fields to be specified and not null in the root resolvers instead? It would at least remove remove all code changes for the verbs, I think.

[pxp928]

I'm wondering, wouldn't it be better to make the input specs have an ID field and remove the !s and move the requirement for the fields to be specified and not null in the root resolvers instead? It would at least remove remove all code changes for the verbs, I think.

We chatted about this and this would be the cleanest approach without removing which fields are required.

[jeffmendoza]

Not sure about the schema change for noun ingests. Maybe ask the other maintainers.

Otherwise looks good with a small nit.

[mihaimaruseac]

Approving in this case, though I still think that it adds one extra indirection in the query. The generated code now does double verification that the fields are not null, if we remove the ! the generated code would do none and we'd add it manually in the top-level resolvers. But I think this also changes the types of some arguments, so let's go with this at least for now.

[jeffmendoza]

I like the "union" approach as it is more clear to a reader of the schema what is and isn't required for an ingest, otherwise it would just be documentation or reading code to tell you that you can either supply ID or the rest of the fields in the object.