[FLINK-16586][network] Build ResultSubpartitionInfo and InputChannelInfo in respective constructors

[zhijiangW]

What is the purpose of the change

In the constructors of ResultSubpartition and InputChannel, the respective ResultSubpartitionInfo and InputChannelInfo should be created as well.

These infos would be used for interacting with ChannelStateReader and ChannelStateWriter future.

Brief change log

• Build InputChannelInfo in constructor of InputChannel
• Build ResultSubpartitionInfo in constructor of ResultSubpartition

Verifying this change

• Added ResultPartitionTest#testResultSubpartitionInfo and SingleInputGateTest#testInputChannelInfo

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, Kubernetes/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 2ca2fa8 (Fri Mar 13 08:25:11 UTC 2020)

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:

• a86f1e2 UNKNOWN
• f0a936b Travis: SUCCESS Azure: FAILURE

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

[zhijiangW]

Thanks for the review @rkhachatryan !
I fixed the check style issue and commented for ResultPartitionBuilder issue. If you are not insistent on it, I would prefer keeping it as now. :)

[rkhachatryan]

Thanks for the contribution @zhijiangW .
LGTM except for a couple of changes highlighted.