[Star tree] Moving compositeCodec to composite912Codec and dropping composite99Codec

[bharath-techie]

Description

Since the composite / star tree index is under experimental flag and search changes are also not released yet - moving composite codec to 912 directly with support for lucene 9.12

Related Issues

Resolves #15333 (review)

Check List

• Functionality includes testing.
• API changes companion pull request created, if applicable.
• Public documentation issue/PR created, if applicable.

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.

[github-actions]

✅ Gradle check result for 64d6c32: SUCCESS

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.33333% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 71.91%. Comparing base (a81b868) to head (64d6c32).
Report is 51 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...site/composite912/Composite912DocValuesWriter.java	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #16227      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     71.94%   71.91%   -0.03%     
- Complexity    64612    64731     +119     
============================================
  Files          5298     5302       +4     
  Lines        301952   302472     +520     
  Branches      43627    43699      +72     
============================================
+ Hits         217247   217534     +287     
- Misses        66884    67095     +211     
- Partials      17821    17843      +22     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[reta]

@msfroh no concerns from you? Hopefully, we won't be having people playing with the codec for a sake of igenstion (without the search part),

[msfroh]

@msfroh no concerns from you? Hopefully, we won't be having people playing with the codec for a sake of igenstion (without the search part),

Yeah... if I recall correctly, we made no announcement regarding the star tree feature in 2.17, so someone would have had to comb through issues and explicitly enabled the indexing path. Why would they do that if the result is unsearchable?

I see this as a use of a feature flag to guard work in progress, which we should be able to do for features that cannot be implemented within a single release.

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Navigate to the root of your repository
cd $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)
# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-16227-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 b5917c5c349c4c931fd278f59f5fadfbcf7f0379
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-16227-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/OpenSearch/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-16227-to-2.x.

[reta]

@bharath-techie could you please backport manually to 2.x? Thank you!