[FLINK-18242][state-backend-rocksdb] Separate RocksDBOptionsFactory from OptionsFactory

[carp84]

What is the purpose of the change

Completely separate RocksDBOptionsFactory from OptionsFactory to prevent silent failure of setting RocksDB options by extending DefaultConfigurableOptionsFactory but implementing old createDBOptions(DBOptions currentOptions) method (as described by FLINK-18242).

The changes here would require a re-compilation of user codes if RocksDBOptionsFactory is used, as well as some code change if the customized OptionsFactory is extending DefaultConfigurableOptionsFactory.

Brief change log

Separate RocksDBOptionsFactory from OptionsFactory and introduce a new OptionsFactoryAdapter to keep backward compatibility of RocksDBStateBackend#setOptions.

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as RocksDBOptionsFactoryCompatibilityTest and RocksDBStateBackendConfigTest, etc.

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): (yes)
  • RocksDBOptionsFactory is actually user-facing interface and changes here require a release note.
• 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 389cda9 (Thu Jun 11 12:03:48 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.

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:

• e066dff 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

[carp84]

@StephanEwen could you take a look here? Thanks.

[StephanEwen]

I think this looks good.

I commented on the Jira issue about which version to fix and which version to maybe drop OptionsFactory all together.

[carp84]

Created #12673 for release-1.10 thus closing this one.