[FLINK-23487][FLINK-23635][s3] Update aws and presto-hive

[Airblader]

See #16592 for description of the main PR. This PR is a fixup after it has been reverted.

We previously expected and asserted on an IOException. However, presto-hive now uses the AWSCredentialsProviderChain when building the S3 client, and we instead fail with an SdkClientException.

See

• https://github.com/prestodb/presto/blob/0.187/presto-hive/src/main/java/com/facebook/presto/hive/s3/PrestoS3FileSystem.java#L216
• https://github.com/prestodb/presto/blob/0.257/presto-hive/src/main/java/com/facebook/presto/hive/s3/PrestoS3FileSystem.java#L244

Edit 1: The PR originally passed the CI because this test is not executed for PRs.

Edit 2: Since the original PR has been reverted in the meantime I have re-added that commit to this hotfix PR and updated the description.

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
• 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, ZooKeeper: no
• The S3 file system connector: yes

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 3911d13 (Sat Aug 28 13:10:20 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

• 2 pom.xml files were touched: Check for build and licensing issues.
• 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

[twalthr]

Thanks for the quick fix @Airblader. I'm wondering whether we should wrap the original exception into a IOException. It seems the file system usually does this for all kind of errors?

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 3911d13 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

[twalthr]

After an offline discussion with @AHeise we will let the SdkClientException propagate as IOException is more intended for retryability which is not the case for config issues.