Introduce the extraProperties to support user-defined pluggable accessCheckers

[zuston]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Introduce the reservedData to extend more pluggable accessCheckers

Why are the changes needed?

In current codebase, the accessinfo only have acessid and tags. If we want to extend more AccessChecker in coordinator, the info is not enough.

To solve this, i think introducing the reservedData is necessary.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No.

How was this patch tested?

UTs

[jerqi]

Could you give us some examples?

[zuston]

Could u help check this PR? @duanmeng

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #42 (346c6d1) into master (f931cf0) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 25.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master      #42      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     55.18%   55.12%   -0.06%     
+ Complexity     1112     1110       -2     
============================================
  Files           149      149              
  Lines          7964     7969       +5     
  Branches        760      761       +1     
============================================
- Hits           4395     4393       -2     
- Misses         3328     3333       +5     
- Partials        241      243       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...he/uniffle/coordinator/CoordinatorGrpcService.java	2.42% <0.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
...ava/org/apache/uniffle/coordinator/AccessInfo.java	81.81% <50.00%> (-18.19%)	⬇️
...storage/handler/impl/DataSkippableReadHandler.java	81.25% <0.00%> (-3.13%)	⬇️
.../apache/uniffle/coordinator/ClientConfManager.java	91.54% <0.00%> (-1.41%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f931cf0...346c6d1. Read the comment docs.

[zuston]

@duanmeng @jerqi Updated

Changelog

1. Rename the reservedData to extraProperties

[jerqi]

Is this a compatible feature? Can low version client use high version server? Can high version client use low version server?

[zuston]

I think it's an incompatible change.

[jerqi]

I think it's an incompatible change.

I think we can make it become a compatible feature. Because protobuffer have backwards-compatibility.

[zuston]

@jerqi
Tested. Now if the client of low version is interactive with high version coordinator, the current implementation is compatible.
The extraProperties will be a unmodified empty map.

[jerqi]

LGTM, let @duanmeng take a look and decide whether to approve.

[duanmeng]

LGTM