Fixes janino bug returning incorrect results

[AlanConfluent]

What is the purpose of the change

The bug comes from the fact that previously, we were creating an anonymous function callback within the janino generated code. This function was then referencing the local DelegatingAsyncResultFuture, effectively creating a closure. When the function was called back from different threads, they seemed to both reference the same DelegatingAsyncResultFuture rather than their own local ones. The result was returning incorrect "synchronous" results, so queries like the following might have issues:

SELECT f1, func(f1, f2, f3) FROM Table1;

Here, the f1 column returned was retrieved by asking for it from the local DelegatingAsyncResultFuture, and so getting the wrong instance meant getting the wrong result.

To fix it, I removed the inner anonymous function and just added the same logic on DelegatingAsyncResultFuture. It requires setting it up with all of the metadata (indexes, sync results), and when the result is complete, rather than calling the generated function, it just creates the result RowData itself.

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 follow the conventions for tests defined in our code quality guide.

(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 cluster 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:

• 46821a9 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

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