refactor!: add processor builder and transform buidler

[paomian]

I hereby agree to the terms of the GreptimeDB CLA.

Refer to a related PR or issue link (optional)

What's changed and what's your intention?

• remove dissect reference keys. because the resulting key is uncertain, it can't be specified by transform; if it is certain, you can use name matching to get the specified key directly.
• make all processors modify the intermediate state of the vec format directly. optimizing performance
• use the builder to build all processors, making the processor build flow easier to understand.

Checklist

• I have written the necessary rustdoc comments.
• I have added the necessary unit tests and integration tests.
• This PR requires documentation updates.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.10526% with 138 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.54%. Comparing base (d628079) to head (2bfd513).
Report is 67 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #4571      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.92%   84.54%   -0.39%     
==========================================
  Files        1096     1109      +13     
  Lines      196717   199624    +2907     
==========================================
+ Hits       167063   168764    +1701     
- Misses      29654    30860    +1206     

[sunng87]

This is hard to review. I'm +1 to move this forward. But there are some points we need to verify and refactor in future patches:

• make sure there is no unwrap in production code
• don't use String as Err in pipeline Result. Follow the Error processing pattern.
• make sure no existing test is modified except the breaking change. We need to keep the behaviour correct

[paomian]

This is hard to review. I'm +1 to move this forward. But there are some points we need to verify and refactor in future patches:

• make sure there is no unwrap in production code
• don't use String as Err in pipeline Result. Follow the Error processing pattern.
• make sure no existing test is modified except the breaking change. We need to keep the behaviour correct

It's no unwrap in production code.
We will replace the String error type.
I deleted some of the tests because of some breaking changes, but the original tests all passed.

[shuiyisong]

Let's move this pr forward. Remember to update docs for the breaking change.