fix: refresh actor configuration and state between sync attempts

[pedroslopez]

What

This is part 1 of #20912, focused on removing the actor configuration and state from JobSyncConfig and moving into a new AttemptSyncConfig at the Attempt level. It will also mean that config/state is fetched when building the sync input rather than retrieving it from the job's JobSyncConig.

Two issues are fixed with these changes:

1. Refreshing state between sync attempts (fixes checkpointing! - closes Airbyte does not use state from last attempt #17774)
2. Refreshing actor configuration between sync attempts (part of Refresh connector configuration between attempts / activities #20912)

However, it does not address when the CHECK that can run before the SyncWorkflow makes changes to the configuration. This will be addressed via a follow up PR (part 2) via the solutions outlined in the tech spec for #20912, specifically the part on changing the ConnectionManagerWorkflow activities that generate inputs.

How

• Add new AttemptSyncConfig pojo with sourceConfiguration destinationConfiguration and state fields.
• Remove above fields from JobSyncConfig
• Add attempt_sync_config column to the attempts table.
• Build AttemptSyncConfig when generating the sync inputs by fetching the latest actor configuration + state, and write the values to the above column.
• Introduce a new internal api endpoint to update attempt sync config
• Update references that used the JobSyncConfig to instead use the values from AttemptSyncConfig

[github-actions]

Airbyte Code Coverage

File	Coverage [78.94%]	🍏
V0_40_28_001__AddAttemptSyncConfig.java	100%	🍏
DefaultJobCreator.java	100%	🍏
DefaultJobPersistence.java	95.62%	🍏
JobTracker.java	94.7%	🍏
GenerateInputActivityImpl.java	86.04%	🍏
Attempt.java	85.65%	🍏
Job.java	84.87%	🍏
JobPersistence.java	80%	🍏
TemporalWorkerRunFactory.java	77.64%	🍏
TemporalClient.java	61.44%	🍏
ApiClientBeanFactory.java	0%	❌
ProtocolConverters.java	0%	❌
StateConverter.java	0%	❌
AttemptApiController.java	0%	❌
ApplicationBeanFactory.java	0%	❌

Total Project Coverage	24.62%	❌

[benmoriceau]

Sorry for the delay, I missed this PR. It LGTM, it doesn't seems that there is a concurrency issue with this PR. About the comment where you tagged me, I believe that it is some legacy code that should be removed. This shouldn't be part of your PR and I'll create an issue for for that.