Bug fix. Allow passing null http headers object to translateTableName

[shounakmk219]

Addresses issue #12745

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 61.53%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (377dc63).
Report is 188 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...a/org/apache/pinot/common/utils/DatabaseUtils.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12764      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     61.75%   61.53%   -0.22%     
+ Complexity      207      198       -9     
============================================
  Files          2436     2462      +26     
  Lines        133233   134627    +1394     
  Branches      20636    20839     +203     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    82841     +567     
- Misses        44911    45600     +689     
- Partials       6048     6186     +138     

Flag	Coverage Δ
custom-integration1	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration1	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration2	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11	34.49% <0.00%> (-27.22%)	⬇️
java-21	61.42% <0.00%> (-0.21%)	⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false	61.51% <0.00%> (-0.24%)	⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-true	61.39% <0.00%> (+33.67%)	⬆️
temurin	61.53% <0.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️
unittests	61.52% <0.00%> (-0.22%)	⬇️
unittests1	46.12% <0.00%> (-0.77%)	⬇️
unittests2	27.94% <0.00%> (+0.21%)	⬆️

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.

[jackjlli]

Thanks for addressing it! Does it make sense to put the @Nullable annotation to the callers of these two methods, like handleRequest() in BrokerRequestHandler class?

[shounakmk219]

Not sure if implementations of BrokerRequestHandler.handleRequest are fine with a null header.
FineGrainedAccessControl.hasAccess interface which is invoked in BaseBrokerRequestHandler.handleRequest may be sensitive to headers based on provided implementation.
Technically the util only breaks if invoked through tests with null header as existing code path does not pass a null header anywhere.
I have handled this at test side code itself earlier during introduction of the util.

[jackjlli]

Not just the test code which will invoke the real logic, in fact a lot of companies will invoke the handleRequest() method with their own ways.

I have handled this at test side code itself earlier during introduction of the util.

And I just tested the code before the PR mentioned above, previously the test did work with a null httpHeaders. But after the code change in that PR it starts to fail with a null httpHeaders. Could you add a unit test for this to make sure the original behavior won't break?

[Jackie-Jiang]

I'm merging it since the fix is very straight forward. We can discuss why null values are passed in separately