feat: Support for descending fields CLI index creation

[ChrisBQu]

Relevant issue(s)

Resolves #2460

Description

Using the HTTP endpoint, it was possible to create a collection index, with each field being either descending or ascending. This was possible because one of the parameters was a boolean field called "Descending." However, this functionality was not present in the CLI equivalent.

This feature adds support for creating descending fields.

For example, the following sorts name in ascending order, because ascension is the default

defradb client index create -c User --fields name

The following sorts it in descending order:

defradb client index create -c User --fields name:DESC

And the following sorts multiple fields, in different combinations of descending and ascending order:

defradb client index create -c User --fields name:ASC,score:DESC

Tasks

• I made sure the code is well commented, particularly hard-to-understand areas.
• I made sure the pull request title adheres to the conventional commit style

How has this been tested?

Specify the platform(s) on which this was tested:

• Windows

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 68.75000% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.49%. Comparing base (332f9d6) to head (1b181e1).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cli/index_create.go	78.57%	5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
cli/errors.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3237      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    77.61%   77.49%   -0.12%     
===========================================
  Files          382      382              
  Lines        35236    35263      +27     
===========================================
- Hits         27345    27324      -21     
- Misses        6272     6308      +36     
- Partials      1619     1631      +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
all-tests	77.49% <68.75%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
cli/errors.go	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
cli/index_create.go	86.96% <78.57%> (-6.52%)	⬇️

... and 13 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 332f9d6...1b181e1. Read the comment docs.

[ChrisBQu]

todo: I will be adding integration tests for this.

[islamaliev]

Looks good. Tests would be great. Actually I don't know why there is no tests for this yet. I might have missed this case.

You can look into tests/integration/index/query_with_composite_index_field_order_test.go and tests/integration/index/query_with_index_only_field_order_test.go. Just copy&paste one of the tests and instead of including an index into testUtils.SchemaUpdate create another testUtils.CreateIndex with whatever params you deem appropriate.

Our integration tests will run for all 3 clients: go client, HTTP and CLI. So whatever action you write in integration tests will be translated to the "language" of these 3 clients. So you will have to change CreateIndex method in tests/clients/cli/wrapper_collection.go.

[islamaliev]

One thing that needs to be added is documentation. Please make sure you include the new change. Couldn't leave an inline comment as you didn't change that part. It's the description in cli/index_create.go.

After this you can run make docs to sync docs with other places.

[AndrewSisley]

Looks really good Chris, solution is nice and simple, and easy to read. Am curious as to how nice/miserable you found writing that first integration test? Congrats on your first PR :)

I have a couple of minor suggestions for you, please respond to them before merging (your response can very much be 'no I think that is a bad idea because of xyz'), as well as making sure Islam and any other reviewers are of course happy :)

[ChrisBQu]

I discussed the way the CreateIndex function is written with Andy. Currently, it takes in an IndexDescription object. Because of this, the function has access to a boolean indicating whether or not the order should be descending. However, the function does not have access to any context indicating whether a false value means ":ASC" was explicitly passed in, or because nothing was passed in explicitly, and the default value (ascending order) was used.

[islamaliev]

LGTM! Good job, Chris.

[islamaliev]

bug bash result: run different combinations of composite indexes with different directions. Everything work fine.