[FLINK-12366][table] Clean up Catalog APIs to make them more consiste…

[xuefuz]

…nt and coherent

What is the purpose of the change

Clean up existing catalog APIs to make them more consistent and coherent

Brief change log

• Clean up API signature regarding exception thrown
• Improve error handling

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests. Tests are modified to reflect the proposed changes.

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, 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? (avaDocs)

[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.
• ❓ 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

[bowenli86]

Thanks Xuefu for the PR. As we synced offline, I marked a few places for your reference:

• Since we decided a few inclusion relationship among exceptions, e.g. TableNotExistException would include DatabaseNotExistException, so does PartitionNotException, we can update javadoc of these exception classes to indicate that relationship
• minor: a few private method "isPartitionedTable" and "isPartitionedSpecValid" also have implications, e.g. isPartitionedTable() implies that callers need to check whether the table exists or not and throw exceptions before calling isPartitionedTable(). We can add javadoc for those implications too, and can dedup the logic, e.g. with that assumption isParitionedTable() can assume the table always exist then
• a few other line comments

Best,
Bowen

[xuefuz]

Thanks, @bowenli86! Updated the PR to address above your review feedback.

[bowenli86]

LGTM, +1

[bowenli86]

@KurtYoung Would be good to have you take a look, and help to merge if there's no more concerns. Thanks!

[KurtYoung]

I don't quite get the idea why this function will not throw TableNotExistException, but listPartitions will. These two methods are both some kind of "get some partition from table".

[xuefuz]

In short, partition not existing includes the case of table not existing. getPartition() attempts to get a specific partition for a table. If the table doesn't exist, then of course, the partition doesn't exist.

On the other hand, listPartition() fails (throws an exception) if the table doesn't exist, which is reasonable.

Just like getTable(), which doesn't throw databasenotexistEx when db doesn't exist. The change makes the behavior consistent across board.

[KurtYoung]

LGTM, merging this