[hot-fix] Fix the NullPointerException when modifying the self-optimizing.enabled

[wangtaohz]

Why are the changes needed?

When I changed the self-optimizing.enabled from true to false, I got this error message if there is no running optimizing process.

2023-11-30 15:43:29,206 ERROR [async-table-runtime-refresh-executor-0] [com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain] [] - failed to handle, ignore and continue
java.lang.NullPointerException: null
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.executor.TableRuntimeRefreshExecutor.handleConfigChanged(TableRuntimeRefreshExecutor.java:69) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.lambda$fireConfigChanged$2(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:67) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.doSilently(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:110) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:67) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.RuntimeHandlerChain.fireConfigChanged(RuntimeHandlerChain.java:70) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.DefaultTableService.handleTableChanged(DefaultTableService.java:326) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.TableRuntime.lambda$refresh$9(TableRuntime.java:223) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.persistence.StatedPersistentBase.invokeConsisitency(StatedPersistentBase.java:45) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.TableRuntime.refresh(TableRuntime.java:215) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.executor.TableRuntimeRefreshExecutor.execute(TableRuntimeRefreshExecutor.java:81) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.executor.BaseTableExecutor.executeTask(BaseTableExecutor.java:74) ~[classes/:?]
	at com.netease.arctic.server.table.executor.BaseTableExecutor.lambda$scheduleIfNecessary$4(BaseTableExecutor.java:83) ~[classes/:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:511) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:266) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$201(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:180) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:293) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624) [?:1.8.0_292]
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) [?:1.8.0_292]

Brief change log

• make the optimizing process is not null before checking its status

How was this patch tested?

• Add some test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive cases if possible

• Add screenshots for manual tests if appropriate

• Run test locally before making a pull request

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ca2061e) 52.96% compared to head (ed4a1bd) 52.96%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...er/table/executor/TableRuntimeRefreshExecutor.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #2388      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     52.96%   52.96%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     4303     4299       -4     
============================================
  Files           516      516              
  Lines         29716    29717       +1     
  Branches       2896     2897       +1     
============================================
  Hits          15739    15739              
- Misses        12699    12701       +2     
+ Partials       1278     1277       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
core	53.35% <0.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
trino	50.89% <ø> (-0.13%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[wangtaohz]

cc @zhongqishang

[zhongqishang]

LGTM.

[baiyangtx]

LGTM