[FLINK-17088] [runtime][web] Search TaskManager log content based on keywords function

[ambition119]

What is the purpose of the change

Usually the taskmanager log file has a lot of content. There are several ways to search for content keywords:
The first one: in browser ctrl + f
The second type: use shell command operations on the server ip, such as grep -A
The third kind: Log files are connected to Elasticsearch through Logstash / Filebeat

These all increase the user's operation, which brings inconvenience, so the search function is developed to query the log content.

Brief change log

• flink-runtime module add TaskManagerLogSearchInfoHandler class
• web-dashboard change

Verifying this change

1. Added tests in TaskManagerLogSearchInfoHandlerTest
2. $ cd web-dashboard
   $ npm run proxy
   

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 733d9ef (Fri Apr 10 18:13:34 UTC 2020)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
• This pull request references an unassigned Jira ticket. According to the code contribution guide, tickets need to be assigned before starting with the implementation work.

_{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.

Details

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:

• d0618cc Travis: SUCCESS Azure: 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

[wuchong]

Hi @jinglining @GJL , could you help to review this PR? I'm not very familiar with this part.

[tillrohrmann]

Thanks for creating this PR @ambition119.

I am not entirely sure whether we want to support this feature as it is implemented. I see a couple of problems which need to be properly discussed. Creating a new result file for search query and only removing it on JVM exit might be a bit problematic. Also running over the whole file might be quite expensive depending on the file size. This could add unwanted load on the JobManager process. I believe that it would be best if one used a dedicated logging system for these kind of tasks. This means that Flink won't support this feature out of the box though.

For all further discussion, I would suggest to go back to the JIRA ticket and try to first reach consensus there before starting the implementation work. Hence, I would also vote to close this PR until the consensus is reached.

[tillrohrmann]

Closing this PR until we have reached consensus on how to approach this problem.