[Celerdata] Add a grok expression to parse the new log format of BE (ECOINT-101)

[yandongxiao]

What does this PR do?

Add a grok expression to parse the new log format of BE

Motivation

The newest log format for BE component of StarRocks has changed, so we need to append a new grok expression.

Review checklist

• PR has a meaningful title or PR has the no-changelog label attached
• Feature or bugfix has tests
• Git history is clean
• If PR impacts documentation, docs team has been notified or an issue has been opened on the documentation repo
• If this PR includes a log pipeline, please add a description describing the remappers and processors.

Additional Notes

Anything else we should know when reviewing?

[yandongxiao]

The failed check reported that I forgot to execute 'ddev validate models celerdata -s'.

Even after I ran ddev validate models celerdata -s on 8.0.0, it still showed errors. By the way, the CelerData plugin was developed using version 8.0.0.

I also tried running ddev validate models celerdata -s with version 11.1.0, but it seems to modify the code content, so as a precaution, I did not submit the following code below.

diff --git a/celerdata/datadog_checks/celerdata/config_models/instance.py b/celerdata/datadog_checks/celerdata/config_models/instance.py
index 3f0792bf..123db35a 100644
--- a/celerdata/datadog_checks/celerdata/config_models/instance.py
+++ b/celerdata/datadog_checks/celerdata/config_models/instance.py
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ class AuthToken(BaseModel):
     writer: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Any]] = None
 
 
-class ExtraMetric(BaseModel):
+class ExtraMetrics(BaseModel):
     model_config = ConfigDict(
         arbitrary_types_allowed=True,
         extra='allow',
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ class MetricPatterns(BaseModel):
     include: Optional[tuple[str, ...]] = None
 
 
-class Metric(BaseModel):
+class Metrics(BaseModel):
     model_config = ConfigDict(
         arbitrary_types_allowed=True,
         extra='allow',
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ class Proxy(BaseModel):
     no_proxy: Optional[tuple[str, ...]] = None
 
 
-class ShareLabel(BaseModel):
+class ShareLabels(BaseModel):
     model_config = ConfigDict(
         arbitrary_types_allowed=True,
         frozen=True,
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ class InstanceConfig(BaseModel):
     exclude_metrics: Optional[tuple[str, ...]] = None
     exclude_metrics_by_labels: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Union[bool, tuple[str, ...]]]] = None
     extra_headers: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Any]] = None
-    extra_metrics: Optional[tuple[Union[str, MappingProxyType[str, Union[str, ExtraMetric]]], ...]] = None
+    extra_metrics: Optional[tuple[Union[str, MappingProxyType[str, Union[str, ExtraMetrics]]], ...]] = None
     headers: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Any]] = None
     histogram_buckets_as_distributions: Optional[bool] = None
     hostname_format: Optional[str] = None
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ class InstanceConfig(BaseModel):
     kerberos_principal: Optional[str] = None
     log_requests: Optional[bool] = None
     metric_patterns: Optional[MetricPatterns] = None
-    metrics: Optional[tuple[Union[str, MappingProxyType[str, Union[str, Metric]]], ...]] = None
+    metrics: Optional[tuple[Union[str, MappingProxyType[str, Union[str, Metrics]]], ...]] = None
     min_collection_interval: Optional[float] = None
     namespace: Optional[str] = Field(None, pattern='\\w*')
     non_cumulative_histogram_buckets: Optional[bool] = None
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ class InstanceConfig(BaseModel):
     rename_labels: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Any]] = None
     request_size: Optional[float] = None
     service: Optional[str] = None
-    share_labels: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Union[bool, ShareLabel]]] = None
+    share_labels: Optional[MappingProxyType[str, Union[bool, ShareLabels]]] = None
     skip_proxy: Optional[bool] = None
     tag_by_endpoint: Optional[bool] = None
     tags: Optional[tuple[str, ...]] = None

[iliakur]

lgtm, feel free to fix the validation. The changes you describe are fine.

[dd-dominic]

@iliakur can you confirm if the failed validation needs to be fixed in this case?

Looks like @yandongxiao attempted to run the validation command but it was going to modify the code - is this expected?

[iliakur]

@iliakur can you confirm if the failed validation needs to be fixed in this case?

Looks like @yandongxiao attempted to run the validation command but it was going to modify the code - is this expected?

Yes to both @dd-dominic

[dd-dominic]

@yandongxiao please run validation command

[yandongxiao]

I have tried running ddev validate models celerdata -s with version 11.1.0, and pushed the commit.

[dd-dominic]

@iliakur The developer ran the validation and committed the changes, but looks like they're still receiving the same error. Any idea what may be causing this?