[FLINK-15001] [table-planner-blink] The digest of sub-plan reuse should contain retraction traits for stream physical nodes

[godfreyhe]

What is the purpose of the change

currently, the digest of sub-plan reuse does not contain retraction traits for stream physical nodes now, which maybe cause two sub-plans be reused even if they have different retraction traits and the result is wrong. The pr aims to fix this issue.

Brief change log

• Add retraction traits to digest in RelDigestWriterImpl
• refactor getDigest method and replace RelDigestWriterImpl with RelTreeWriterImpl

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as DagOptimizationTest.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
• The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
• The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 71dae3a (Wed Dec 04 15:14:07 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 71dae3a Travis: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run travis re-run the last Travis build
• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[godfreyhe]

cc @KurtYoung @hequn8128

[hequn8128]

@godfreyhe Thanks a lot for the fix. 👍 I have checked the retraction traits in the tests and have spotted no errors.

As I'm not familiar with the plan reuse logic, +1 to merge once @KurtYoung have no concerns.

Best, Hequn

[KurtYoung]

@hequn8128 feel free to merge

[hequn8128]

Merging...