[hotfix][Pattern Recognition][docs] Fixed an issue that the example o…

[jxjgssylsg]

…f “Time constraint” omits a comma.

What is the purpose of the change

(For example: This pull request makes task deployment go through the blob server, rather than through RPC. That way we avoid re-transferring them on each deployment (during recovery).)

Brief change log

(for example:)

• The TaskInfo is stored in the blob store on job creation time as a persistent artifact
• Deployments RPC transmits only the blob storage reference
• TaskManagers retrieve the TaskInfo from the blob cache

Verifying this change

Please make sure both new and modified tests in this PR follows the conventions defined in our code quality guide: https://flink.apache.org/contributing/code-style-and-quality-common.html#testing

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (100MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after master (JobManager) failure
• Added test that validates that TaskInfo is transferred only once across recoveries
• Manually verified the change by running a 4 node cluser with 2 JobManagers and 4 TaskManagers, a stateful streaming program, and killing one JobManager and two TaskManagers during the execution, verifying that recovery happens correctly.

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, 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]

CI report:

• ee4eb29 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[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 ee4eb29 (Wed Jan 12 06:07:59 UTC 2022)

✅no warnings

_{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.

Details

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

[MartijnVisser]

This supersedes both #18307 and #18313

I think this is good enough to get merged. @fapaul can you merge this?

[MartijnVisser]

Thanks @dawidwys