add toBuilder method on some models

[channel-dante]

Description

• added toBuilder method to all request model in core package & _types.query_dsl package
• for consistent model management, add to all related models rather than just a specific model.

Issues Resolved

• [PROPOSAL] support rebuild or deep copy on SearchRequest.Builder #583

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[dblock]

This looks good. Any way we can get some test coverage here on these other classes? I understand it's laborious (hence we should be investing in a code generator).

[channel-dante]

This looks good. Any way we can get some test coverage here on these other classes? I understand it's laborious (hence we should be investing in a code generator).

@dblock I'm curious what you want to test. Can I just test whether toBuilder works (like this)? Or do you want to verify that all fields operate normally? If you want a second one, it won't be an easy task.

[dblock]

This looks good. Any way we can get some test coverage here on these other classes? I understand it's laborious (hence we should be investing in a code generator).

@dblock I'm curious what you want to test. Can I just test whether toBuilder works (like this)? Or do you want to verify that all fields operate normally? If you want a second one, it won't be an easy task.

I'm good with anything that just exercises the code to start.

[channel-dante]

@dblock Can you please review again? It was a very laborious task 😅

[dblock]

Looks good to me! Nit on CHANGELOG.

Thank you for doing this. I recommend investing more time in code generation so we don't have to do this by hand :)

[dblock]

Add a link to the PR like other lines.

[dblock]

@VachaShah @reta Any ideas of how to do this kind of change better?

[VachaShah]

@VachaShah @reta Any ideas of how to do this kind of change better?

I think for changes like these which span almost all files, code generation is the way to go. If we have some code which can incrementally add such methods (even if it is not a complete code generator for the client), it would be beneficial to add features like toString and withJson.

[VachaShah]

This is great! Thank you @channel-dante for adding this along with the tests!

[reta]

@VachaShah @reta Any ideas of how to do this kind of change better?

Agree with @VachaShah , having code generation in place would make it much simpler ....

[VachaShah]

LGTM, thank you @channel-dante!

[opensearch-trigger-bot]

The backport to 2.x failed:

The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

To backport manually, run these commands in your terminal:

# Fetch latest updates from GitHub
git fetch
# Create a new working tree
git worktree add ../.worktrees/backport-2.x 2.x
# Navigate to the new working tree
pushd ../.worktrees/backport-2.x
# Create a new branch
git switch --create backport/backport-766-to-2.x
# Cherry-pick the merged commit of this pull request and resolve the conflicts
git cherry-pick -x --mainline 1 a8fea24a626485173c870e220731e15482f1ab94
# Push it to GitHub
git push --set-upstream origin backport/backport-766-to-2.x
# Go back to the original working tree
popd
# Delete the working tree
git worktree remove ../.worktrees/backport-2.x

Then, create a pull request where the base branch is 2.x and the compare/head branch is backport/backport-766-to-2.x.

[dblock]

@channel-dante you should backport this manually to 2.x so we can release it with the next minor