[FLINK-17093][python][table-planner][table-planner-blink] Fix Python UDF to make it work with inputs from composite field

[dianfu]

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request fix Python UDF to make it work with inputs from composite field

Brief change log

• Add PythonCalcExpandProjectRule to fix the Python UDFs contained in the Calc
• Updates PythonCorrelateSplitRule to fix the Python UDFs contained in the Correlate

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

• Added tests testPythonFunctionWithCompositeInputs, testChainingPythonFunctionWithCompositeInputs and testPandasFunctionWithCompositeInputs in PythonCalcSplitRuleTest
• Added tests in testPythonTableFunctionWithCompositeInputs and testJavaTableFunctionWithPythonCalcCompositeInputs in PythonCorrelateSplitRuleTest

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

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (no)
• The serializers: (no)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (no)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn/Mesos, ZooKeeper: (no)
• The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

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

[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 ec06c31 (Mon Apr 13 12:19:43 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:

• d13de10 UNKNOWN
• 149cb5a 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

[hequn8128]

@dianfu Thaks a lot for the PR. Some minor comments.

[hequn8128]

Maybe add some document about split RexFieldAccess from PythonCorrelate for the PythonCorrelateSplitRule?

[hequn8128]

We don't need this method, use RexUtil.containsFieldAccess() directly.

[dianfu]

@hequn8128 Thanks a lot for the comments. Make sense to me and have updated the PR.

[dianfu]

@flinkbot run travis

[dianfu]

@flinkbot run azure

[dianfu]

@flinkbot run travis

[dianfu]

@flinkbot run azure

[dianfu]

The test failure of Azure is a known issue tracked in FLINK-16572

[hequn8128]

@dianfu Thanks a lot for the update. Merging...