Add Support for Nested Function Use In WHERE Clause Predicate Expresion

[forestmvey]

Description

Syntax: nested( [field] | [field,path] )

Add support for use of the nested function in the WHERE clause as a predicate expression. Supports nested function on left of operator, and literal on right. When using nested function in WHERE clause, the inner hits of the query are not added to the nested query DSL. To do this you must use the nested function in conjunction with a SELECT clause nested function call. See documentation for this nested implementation HERE (WIP).

Example Queries

SELECT message.info FROM nested_objects WHERE nested(message.info, message) = 'a';
SELECT nested(message.info) FROM nested_objects WHERE nested(message.info, message) = 'a';
SELECT message.info FROM nested_objects WHERE nested(message.info) = 'a' OR nested(comment.data) = 'b' AND nested(message.dayOfWeek) = 4;

Issues Resolved

Issue: 1111

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
  • All tests pass, including unit test, integration test and doctest
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
  • New functionality has user manual doc added
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

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

Merging #1657 (5dc02e0) into main (9824b1c) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 5dc02e0 differs from pull request most recent head eb48a0a. Consider uploading reports for the commit eb48a0a to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #1657      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.16%   97.18%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     4120     4150      +30     
============================================
  Files           371      372       +1     
  Lines         10373    10429      +56     
  Branches        704      716      +12     
============================================
+ Hits          10079    10135      +56     
  Misses          287      287              
  Partials          7        7              

Flag	Coverage Δ
sql-engine	97.18% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ain/java/org/opensearch/sql/analysis/Analyzer.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...l/opensearch/request/OpenSearchRequestBuilder.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...arch/storage/script/filter/FilterQueryBuilder.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...search/storage/script/filter/lucene/LikeQuery.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...arch/storage/script/filter/lucene/LuceneQuery.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...arch/storage/script/filter/lucene/NestedQuery.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...java/org/opensearch/sql/sql/parser/AstBuilder.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[Yury-Fridlyand]

Why? HAVING implemented the same way as WHERE

[forestmvey]

Not sure I understand your question, but I implemented the fallback mechanism in AstBuilder to allow for a fallback specific to the nested function used in the HAVING clause. The old fallback mechanism could not determine between clauses for the filter, and we now support nested in the WHERE clause and not the HAVING so we need to differentiate between nested used in each.

[Yury-Fridlyand]

I think if you remove this check, nested would be automatically supported in HAVING, so why not? Less complexity, more functionality.

[forestmvey]

Good point, may just work as is, though group by is not supported for nested yet. Will need to verify and add tests though, if it fits in the timeline maybe we can support in this release.