[FLINK-12154][network] Remove legacy fields for SingleInputGate

[zhijiangW]

What is the purpose of the change

This work is a preparation for FLINK-11726.

In SingleInputGate#create, we could remove unused parameter ExecutionAttemptID.
And for the constructor of SingleInputGate, we could remove unused parameter TaskIOMetricGroup.
Then we introduce createSingleInputGate for reusing the process of creating SingleInputGate in related tests.

Brief change log

• Remove ExecutionAttemptID parameter from SingleInputGate#create
• Remove TaskIOMetricGroup from constructor of SingleInputGate
• Introduce createSingleInputGate for tests reuse

Verifying this change

(Please pick either of the following options)

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

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, 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)

[zhijiangW]

cc @azagrebin

[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.

Review Progress

• ✅ 1. The [description] looks good.
  • Approved by @azagrebin
• ✅ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
  • Approved by @azagrebin
• ❗ 3. Needs [attention] from.
  • Needs attention by @pnowojski [committer]
• ✅ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
  • Approved by @azagrebin
• ✅ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.
  • Approved by @azagrebin

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

[azagrebin]

@flinkbot approve all
@flinkbot attention @pnowojski

[azagrebin]

Thanks @zhijiangW ! LGTM 👍

[zhijiangW]

Thanks for your review @azagrebin .
I checked the travis result and the failure is not related to my changes.

[pnowojski]

LGTM merging :)

[pnowojski]

Ops, taking it back. Can you resolve conflicts @zhijiangW ?

[zhijiangW]

Sure, I would solve it right now.

[zhijiangW]

@pnowojski I already rebased the master. :)