Add more descriptive names to unmapped datatypes in data dictionary

[foster33]

This PR closes DW-Issue-708

Depends on dw-type-utils PR 33

The data dictionary page previously showed "Unknown" for data types that were not in its list of datatypes.

This PR adds:

• Use of a class defined data dictionary description for 'Types'
• Adds some new test cases

[foster33]

An example of this change can be seen below:

Before the change:

Both types shown above are 'Unknown'

After the change:

The types now show as 'Date'.

[jwomeara]

Interesting... why would we go with this approach vs. adding intentional descriptions for all of the available types in the data dictionary configuration? I'm referring to the map of types to descriptions found in DataDictionaryProperties.

[foster33]

Interesting... why would we go with this approach vs. adding intentional descriptions for all of the available types in the data dictionary configuration? I'm referring to the map of types to descriptions found in DataDictionaryProperties.

@jwomeara I personally do not think that this change is intended to be used in replacement of explicitly adding type descriptions in the dictionary configuration. I see it more as removing the 'Unknown' verbiage and replacing it with clearer information in the event that the type is not added to the map for whatever reason (what it was doing originally). So, I agree that the missing types should be added to the config, but I see this as different.

[ivakegg]

Interesting... why would we go with this approach vs. adding intentional descriptions for all of the available types in the data dictionary configuration? I'm referring to the map of types to descriptions found in DataDictionaryProperties.

Yea, I am unsure why we went that way as well. I think Brian may have been the originator. I guess this was an attempt to make it prettier somehow. I would rather have a method on the type itself that returns a pretty name and not have this hardcoded map here. This PR does answer the call of the ticket. The question is whether it is worth going farther or removing this map altogether.

[jwomeara]

Building the description into the type class itself makes the most sense to me, and should be a relatively simple update. I guess I'm ok with this as a fallback - I just don't want to confuse users as this is going to expose them to some datawave internals that they might not have seen before. For example, picking from some of our available types, I think seeing things like the following could potentially be confusing for users: TrimLeadingZeros, RawDate, NoOp, Lc, LcNoDiacritics, HitTerm to name a few...

[foster33]

See dw-type-utils PR 33 's comments for more information on the type descriptions being used.