[FLINK-20756][python] Add PythonCalcSplitConditionRexFieldRule

[HuangXingBo]

What is the purpose of the change

This pull request will add PythonCalcSplitConditionRexFieldRule

Brief change log

• Add PythonCalcSplitConditionRexFieldRule

Verifying this change

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

• UT in testPythonFunctionWithCompositeWhereClause

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 5e1ebe2 (Fri May 28 06:57:00 UTC 2021)

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:

• 5e1ebe2 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

[WeiZhong94]

@HuangXingBo Thanks for your PR! There is a comment for the rule logic.

[WeiZhong94]

We should call the containsFieldAccessAfterPythonCall here if the expression is not a python call to handle the situation like where javaRowFunc(pyRowFunc5(a)).f0 is NULL. And maybe we can combine this logic into FunctionFinder as the field access, java call, python call may appear alternately. That should be able to better to cover various situations.

[HuangXingBo]

Yes, current logic can't deal with the case of where javaRowFunc(pyRowFunc5(a)).f0 is NULL. We need to change isPythonCall to containsPythonCall and add the logic of visitFieldAccess into the FunctionFinder of PythonUtil

[HuangXingBo]

@WeiZhong94 Thanks a lot for the review. I have addressed the comments at the latest commit.

[dianfu]

Thanks @HuangXingBo for the fix and thanks @WeiZhong94 for the review. Merged.