[Improvement][API] Simplify the Check of Result by introducing several new methods.

[echohlne]

Purpose of the pull request

Try to introduce several methods like below in Result:

    public boolean isSuccess() {
        return this.isStatus(Status.SUCCESS);
    }

    public boolean isFailed() {
        return !this.isSuccess();
    }

    public boolean isStatus(Status status) {
        return this.code != null && this.code.equals(status.getCode());
    }

The purpose of this is to reduce some tedious template code:

// can be replaced by isConnection.isFailed()
if (Status.SUCCESS.getCode() != isConnection.getCode()) {
  ....
}

// can be replaced by isConnection.isSuccess()
if (Status.SUCCESS.getCode() == result.getCode()) {
  ....
}

// can be replaced by Assert.assertTrue(result.isStatus(Status.CREATE_ACCESS_TOKEN_ERROR));
Assert.assertEquals(Status.CREATE_ACCESS_TOKEN_ERROR.getCode(), result.getCode().intValue());

The

Brief change log

No new features， using existing UTs.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #5666 (7125c01) into dev (e2eed1f) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 56.52%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                dev    #5666      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     45.29%   45.34%   +0.05%     
- Complexity     3672     3681       +9     
============================================
  Files           607      607              
  Lines         24794    24797       +3     
  Branches       2803     2803              
============================================
+ Hits          11230    11245      +15     
+ Misses        12493    12479      -14     
- Partials       1071     1073       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...lphinscheduler/api/controller/LoginController.java	4.54% <0.00%> (ø)
...eduler/api/service/impl/DataSourceServiceImpl.java	44.76% <0.00%> (ø)
...r/api/service/impl/ProcessInstanceServiceImpl.java	73.29% <0.00%> (ø)
...heduler/api/service/impl/ResourcesServiceImpl.java	52.19% <60.00%> (ø)
.../org/apache/dolphinscheduler/api/utils/Result.java	93.54% <80.00%> (-2.89%)	⬇️
...inscheduler/common/task/sqoop/SqoopParameters.java	74.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...er/master/dispatch/host/assign/RandomSelector.java	83.33% <0.00%> (+5.55%)	⬆️
...olphinscheduler/rpc/remote/NettyClientHandler.java	51.16% <0.00%> (+9.30%)	⬆️
...he/dolphinscheduler/common/enums/SqoopJobType.java	88.88% <0.00%> (+88.88%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e2eed1f...7125c01. Read the comment docs.

[ruanwenjun]

Hi, to be honest, I don't recommend modifying this class, this may be related to programming habits :).
I think this class should be kept as simple as possible, he shouldn't care about the status judgements.
Another point is that if we add more status judgements in the future, we need to modify this class again.
For example, if we add a new status of result called unknown, then we need to modify this class and add a new method, am I right?

But you are right, right now there is a lot of duplicate code in many placements, once we need to change the rule of status judgement, we need to modify many placements. I may prefer to use a new class to take care of the status judgement, rather than modified the current class.

[echohlne]

Thanks@ruanwenjun I'll close this pr.

[ruanwenjun]

@Kyoty This is my own opinion, you can open this pr and discuss with more people.

[echohlne]

@ruanwenjun thanks, what you said is very valuable, I will collect other's opinions to decide what to do next.

[CalvinKirs]

In my opinion, this is a public method, and I think it can be done so.

[echohlne]

Thanks @CalvinKirs , do you think this pr makes sense? Or is there a better way to deal with it？

[CalvinKirs]

LGTM

[CalvinKirs]

please resolve the conflicts file.thx

[echohlne]

@CalvinKirs solve it!

[sonarqubecloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

75.0% Coverage
1.0% Duplication