Views: VTGate changes for seamless integration

[harshit-gangal]

Description

This PR updates view support to seamlessly integrate with VTGate when the “enable-views” flag is default-on.
It unifies the logic for creating, altering, and dropping views.

Additional tests are unnecessary, as existing tests should continue to validate the unified logic.

Related Issue(s)

• Views Support Work for GA #17391

Checklist

• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.26437% with 25 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.71%. Comparing base (10ff5e3) to head (731219e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/vtgate/vschema_manager.go	23.52%	13 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/planbuilder/ddl.go	87.80%	5 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/vtgate/executorcontext/vcursor_impl.go	78.94%	4 Missing ⚠️
go/test/vschemawrapper/vschema_wrapper.go	66.66%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #17439   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   67.70%   67.71%           
=======================================
  Files        1585     1585           
  Lines      254833   254902   +69     
=======================================
+ Hits       172547   172615   +68     
- Misses      82286    82287    +1     

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

[GuptaManan100]

Do we not need any new tests for these changes?

[harshit-gangal]

Do we not need any new tests for these changes?

The follow up PR would need test regarding global routing for sharded and unsharded views.