addressing build issue with s3-sink

[cmanning09]

Description

Addresses build failure observed in PR: #2726

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':data-prepper-plugins:s3-sink:spotlessMarkdownCheck'.
> The following files had format violations:
      README.md
          @@ -72,4 +72,3 @@
           ```
           ./gradlew·:data-prepper-plugins:s3-sink:integrationTest·-Dtests.s3sink.region=<your-aws-region>·-Dtests.s3sink.bucket=<your-bucket>
           ```
          -
  Run './gradlew :data-prepper-plugins:s3-sink:spotlessApply' to fix these violations.

See: https://github.com/opensearch-project/data-prepper/actions/runs/5082697390/jobs/9132752111?pr=2726

Issues Resolved

None, pro-active clean up

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
• Commits are signed with a real name per the DCO

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2757 (d1cba67) into main (3ce5b53) will increase coverage by 0.19%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #2757      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     93.81%   94.00%   +0.19%     
- Complexity     2315     2354      +39     
============================================
  Files           269      276       +7     
  Lines          6482     6573      +91     
  Branches        534      540       +6     
============================================
+ Hits           6081     6179      +98     
+ Misses          265      254      -11     
- Partials        136      140       +4     

see 8 files with indirect coverage changes

[dlvenable]

I think I addressed this in #2755, but as this has no conflicts it should be ok.

[dlvenable]

@cmanning09 , My main is passing. Maybe we should leave this be?

[cmanning09]

@cmanning09 , My main is passing. Maybe we should leave this be?

@dlvenable , great. Thanks for addressing this. I will close this. At a high level are we not leveraging our approval workflows correctly? Ideally, this shouldn't have been committed and impacted other PRs.

[dlvenable]

@cmanning09 , I agree with that. We shouldn't have let that get through.