Refactor Elasticsearch Storage Configs

[akagami-harsh]

Which problem is this PR solving?

• Part of [jaeger-v2] Rethink components configuration to align with OTEL #5229

Description of the changes

• grouped related configs in elasticsearch into sub-types to make YAML configuration look more structured and readable

How was this change tested?

• ci

Checklist

• I have read https://github.com/jaegertracing/jaeger/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING_GUIDELINES.md
• I have signed all commits
• I have added unit tests for the new functionality
• I have run lint and test steps successfully
  • for jaeger: make lint test
  • for jaeger-ui: yarn lint and yarn test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.96855% with 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 95.52%. Comparing base (901165c) to head (2f3d649).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
pkg/es/config/config.go	82.22%	5 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5480   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.52%   95.52%           
=======================================
  Files         331      331           
  Lines       16155    16167   +12     
=======================================
+ Hits        15432    15444   +12     
  Misses        548      548           
  Partials      175      175           

Flag	Coverage Δ
badger_v1	8.04% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
badger_v2	1.93% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
cassandra-3.x-v1	16.41% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
cassandra-3.x-v2	1.85% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
cassandra-4.x-v1	16.41% <0.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
cassandra-4.x-v2	1.85% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-7.x	1.77% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
elasticsearch-8.x	1.76% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
grpc_v1	9.51% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
grpc_v2	7.57% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
kafka	9.77% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
opensearch-1.x	1.77% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
opensearch-2.x	1.76% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unittests	93.92% <94.96%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

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

[yurishkuro]

this looks confusing to me - when something is enabled: false I don't expect any other properties to make sense. Is create_mappings even related to aliases?

[yurishkuro]

Similar to Badger, let's not change the v1 config but create a v2 config. For example, I don' think we need to support everything that v1 supported, specifically I think we should only support ILM and Data Streams.

[yurishkuro]

this naming duplication suggests to me that we have some groups of settings that individually apply to different indices (spans, services, sampling, deps). Maybe this top level entities should be the main keys in the config, and internally they can share the same attributes, e.g.

spans:
  date_layout:
  rollover_frequency:
services:
  date_layout:
  rollover_frequency:

We could reuse the same struct then for each of the entities.

[yurishkuro]

there is a newer PR #5790