fix(rum-oversight): unknown filter should return empty set

[kptdobe]

#663 "backport to oversight"

[aem-code-sync]

Hello, I'm the AEM Code Sync Bot and I will run some actions to deploy your branch and validate page speed.
In case there are problems, just click a checkbox below to rerun the respective action.

• Re-run PSI checks
• Re-sync branch

Commits

• 53ad4ad ✅ (latest)

[trieloff]

@karlpauls we should add this to distiller.

[trieloff]

And then close it in favor of #669

[karlpauls]

This seems to fail the tests:

✖ DataChunk.filter(userAgent) negation (0.836417ms)
  AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: Expected values to be strictly equal:
  
  0 !== 1
  
      at TestContext.<anonymous> ( ) {
    generatedMessage: true,
    code: 'ERR_ASSERTION',
    actual: 0,
    expected: 1,
    operator: 'strictEqual'
  }

Otherwise, it seems to apply cleanly to the distiller so if I can get the test to pass I'll follow the suggestion from @trieloff.

[karlpauls]

I think I see the issue, the test for the negation has a filter for the host facet that is not defined. I fixed it like this:

+++ b/tools/oversight/test/cruncher.test.js
@@ -776,6 +776,7 @@ describe('DataChunks', () => {
     d.load(chunks1);
 
     // define facet functions
+    d.addFacet('host', (bundle) => bundle.host);
     d.addFacet(
       // as a convention, we use ! to indicate negation. When used in URL parameters, this
       // looks like a nice filter:  ?userAgent!=desktop

in adobe/rum-distiller#9 - @kptdobe, does that make sense and if so, should I merge it in rum-distiller and close this issue in favor of #669 as suggested by @trieloff?

[kptdobe]

If we plan to use the distiller in oversight, yes, we can close this one.