[FLINK-17640][network][tests] Fix the unstable unit tests in RecoveredInputChannelTest

[zhijiangW]

What is the purpose of the change

Fix the unstable unit test in RecoveredInputChannelTest#testConcurrentReadStateAndProcessAndRelease

Brief change log

• Verify the released state of input channel instead of verifying the illegal state message

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests.

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 e873c1a (Wed May 13 03:39:36 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:

• 90311e5 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

[pnowojski]

I'm +0 for this change. With this PR this test is definitely better, but still not good. I would be fine with either dropping it, or replacing with an ITCase. But we can re-evaluate it if it fail one more time.

[zhijiangW]

Thanks for the review @AHeise @pnowojski !

I think the current unit test has some effects at the moment to detect the potential deadlock and buffer leak issues, especially in such complicated processes. I agree we can re-evaluate it whether to introduce an ITCase for replacing it if it brings some trouble next time.

[zhijiangW]

I updated the codes to append the original exception message in failing message.

[zhijiangW]

Unrelated failure in azure, merging!