[MD] Support SigV4 as a new auth type of datasource

[zhongnansu]

Signed-off-by: Su szhongna@amazon.com

Description

Untitled.1.mp4

UI & Backend implementation to support SigV4 as a new auth type of datasource. It supports both legacy client and opensearch client.

• Add new auth type SigV4
• refactor data source save object wrapper
• refactor client configuration
• support legacy client
• integrate with test connection [TODO]
• update jest config module mapper to deal with dependency subpath export in node

CI failed because current Jest version (v27) used in OSD doesn't support subpath exports. There's an issue discussing this. It seems jest v28 has a fix. Upgrading jest could be another work. Right now, I am looking for a workaround. inspired by this and this

Issues Resolved

#2110
#2921

Check List

• All tests pass
  • yarn test:jest
  • yarn test:jest_integration
  • yarn test:ftr
• New functionality includes testing.
• New functionality has been documented.
• Update CHANGELOG.md
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

[AMoo-Miki]

What do we mean by "deprecated data source"?

[zengyan-amazon]

+1

[zhongnansu]

This is from previous contributor. update the text to be just Failed to update datasource: xxx

[zhongnansu]

Change this back to draft, because I need to to resolve conflicts and integrate Sigv4 with the recent test connection feature

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #3058 (615a312) into main (0cab6fe) will decrease coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 40.74%.

📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3058      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.56%   66.45%   -0.12%     
==========================================
  Files        3203     3205       +2     
  Lines       61325    61479     +154     
  Branches     9453     9491      +38     
==========================================
+ Hits        40819    40853      +34     
- Misses      18250    18359     +109     
- Partials     2256     2267      +11     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Linux	66.39% <40.74%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
Windows	66.39% <40.74%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/plugins/data/server/plugin.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
src/plugins/data/server/search/collectors/usage.ts	22.72% <ø> (-3.36%)	⬇️
...omponents/validation/datasource_form_validation.ts	75.86% <0.00%> (-24.14%)	⬇️
src/plugins/data_source_management/public/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...egion_map/public/components/map_choice_options.tsx	53.33% <ø> (ø)
...s_credential_modal/update_aws_credential_modal.tsx	5.26% <5.26%> (ø)
...gins/data_source/server/client/configure_client.ts	46.66% <35.71%> (-19.38%)	⬇️
...rce/components/edit_form/edit_data_source_form.tsx	70.74% <38.35%> (-20.03%)	⬇️
...components/create_form/create_data_source_form.tsx	75.26% <41.66%> (-21.71%)	⬇️
...c/plugins/data_source/server/client/client_pool.ts	46.66% <45.00%> (-12.16%)	⬇️
... and 6 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[kgcreative]

Nitpick: I'm not sure we need the second confirmation fields for access key/secret key. The form already allows a user to reveal the text, so to me this will simply lead to the user copy/pasting twice. I think it makes sense for "password" since it's a helpful way to confirm that the user didn't make a mistake while typing, for generally for these keys, users don't really type these codes, so it's a bit redundant to ask them to double confirm.

cc: @KrooshalUX -- curious as to your gut check here

[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:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-3058-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 de89c527dee3a997bfffc2079dbf97e4f813e54e
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-3058-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-3058-to-2.x.