feat(snuba-search): adds handling for additional filters for useGroupSnubaDataset=1

[scefali]

This PR adds the capability to filter on the following new attributes:

• regressed_in_release
• release.build
• release.package
• release.dist

All of them require Postgres queries but handle it differently. For regressed_in_release, use the query to generate a list of IDs where we have a group history for regression that matches the versions we check for. For the other three, we get the release versions from Postgres and use that in a snuba query checking events of particular release versions.

Note I am leveraging convert_search_filter_to_snuba_query to generate the filters which requires some name mapping that I've added. And it adds logic to skip checking search_issues for columns that don't appear in it.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.97%. Comparing base (e5cfbd8) to head (d807eac). Report is 87 commits behind head on master.

:exclamation: Current head d807eac differs from pull request most recent head 5531122. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5531122 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #70607      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.97%   79.97%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        6500     6500              
  Lines      290317   290449     +132     
  Branches    50022    50044      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits       232187   232290     +103     
- Misses      57763    57792      +29     
  Partials      367      367              

Files	Coverage Δ
...entry/issues/endpoints/organization_group_index.py	92.89% <ø> (ø)
src/sentry/search/snuba/backend.py	96.77% <ø> (ø)
src/sentry/search/snuba/executors.py	96.41% <93.75%> (-0.18%)	:arrow_down:

... and 74 files with indirect coverage changes

[scefali]

@wedamija It does, i can add tests for it if you think it's worth it

[wedamija]

@wedamija It does, i can add tests for it if you think it's worth it

As long as that functionality is already tested I think it's ok. If the tests are part of the old backend, and we plan to remove that backend, then we should port them over

[sentry[bot]]

Suspect Issues

This pull request was deployed and Sentry observed the following issues:

• ‼️ ValueError: ['handled', "''"] is not a valid Op /api/0/organizations/{organization_slug}/issues/ View Issue

_{Did you find this useful? React with a 👍 or 👎}