Add initial version of TypeDB extension

[whummer]

Motivation

Add initial version of TypeDB extension. Migrating from the temporary repo used to build out the MVP, in collaboration with the TypeDB team: https://github.com/whummer/localstack-utils/tree/master/localstack-typedb

After installing the extension, a TypeDB server instance will become available under typedb.localhost.localstack.cloud:4566, allowing you to create and manage TypeDB databases directly from your AWS applications running in LocalStack.

For example, you could create a microservice backed by a Lambda function that connects to a TypeDB database upon invocation. See here for a simple example application that makes use of this extension.

This is part of a collaboration / co-branding with TypeDB, a blog post should be following soon.. (/cc @flyingsilverfin )

Changes

• add base class ProxiedDockerContainerExtension which can be used to define an Extension backed by a Docker container. We may be able to pull out this class into common utils over time.
• add ProxyResource class which is used as a resource that hooks into the LocalStack (rolo) handler chain and forwards matching requests to the extension container
• add ProxyRequestMatcher class which allows the extension to define which incoming requests are in scope and should be forwarded to the TypeDB container
• add TcpForwarder class to enable a bidirectional TCP proxy tunnel that forwards traffic to and from the external container
• add TypeDbExtension class which defines the main entrypoint for the extension
• add a couple of simple integration tests to cover the functionality

[purcell]

I pushed a number of changes here, rather than just leave a pile of comments. I like the ProxiedDockerContainerExtension and agree it could become part of core.

I took the liberty of rewriting the HTTP2->GRPC forwarding, to try and make the logic clearer. There's a commit there which documents the danger of calling that patch function twice, by making it safe to do so, but that's only relevant if the code is ever extracted and used elsewhere.

The extent of my testing here was running the existing tests.

[purcell]

In case it helps, here's the diff for the changes I added on top of yours: 1cc63b7...typedb-extension

[purcell]

The main thing I thought of that may be missing for avid TypeDB users was the ability to mount a volume into the docker container that is started, so that that data could persist between runs: the command flags alone don't really allow for that. If that makes sense (I wasn't sure if it would be idiomatic for LS and its extensions), I have a commit waiting that adds this feature.

[whummer]

Looks great, thanks @purcell for proactively pushing the additional commits. 🚀 I've looked at the delta, and your changes look good to me 👍 (cannot approve my own PR, but ✅ )

The main thing I thought of that may be missing for avid TypeDB users was the ability to mount a volume into the docker container that is started, so that that data could persist between runs: the command flags alone don't really allow for that. If that makes sense (I wasn't sure if it would be idiomatic for LS and its extensions), I have a commit waiting that adds this feature.

That's a great point! I guess we could either (1) add a config option (via an environment variable passed to LocalStack) to mount a local directory into the TypeDB container at /var/lib/typedb/data, or (2) add a config flag to enable persistence, and then use the LocalStack Volume as the persistence volume mounted into the TypeDB container. (haven't tested this locally, but should technically be possible to mount a single host folder into multiple containers). Given that there are different options to evaluate, should we perhaps tackle this as a follow-up PR?

There's a commit there which documents the danger of calling that patch function twice, by making it safe to do so, but that's only relevant if the code is ever extracted and used elsewhere.

Regarding the double-patching - great catch, thanks for adding the safeguard here. In my view, we could also remove the patch_counter, and simply raise an exception if an attempt is made to apply the patches multiple times (which, as you mentioned, is inadvisable or could point at some issue in the code logic anyway). That would make things a bit easier and more explicit - wdyt?