Custom configuration property reader for segment metadata files

[abhioncbr]

This is the first set of changes for the issue.

In this PR, we introduce a new custom property reader for the segment metadata files. This custom property reader is based on the commons-configuration2 custom property reader/writer(here is the link). We are introducing this custom property reader to avoid unescaping operation happen for the key in default implementation.

cc: @klsince @Jackie-Jiang @itschrispeck

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 86.36364% with 9 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.16%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (fbd5450).
Report is 522 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...pache/pinot/spi/env/CommonsConfigurationUtils.java	85.71%	4 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rg/apache/pinot/spi/env/PropertyIOFactoryKind.java	70.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
.../apache/pinot/spi/env/VersionedPropertyReader.java	91.66%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #12440      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     61.75%   62.16%   +0.41%     
+ Complexity      207      198       -9     
============================================
  Files          2436     2540     +104     
  Lines        133233   139455    +6222     
  Branches      20636    21554     +918     
============================================
+ Hits          82274    86697    +4423     
- Misses        44911    46265    +1354     
- Partials       6048     6493     +445     

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	62.12% <86.36%> (+0.41%)	⬆️
java-21	62.05% <86.36%> (+0.42%)	⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-false	62.15% <86.36%> (+0.41%)	⬆️
skip-bytebuffers-true	62.02% <86.36%> (+34.29%)	⬆️
temurin	62.16% <86.36%> (+0.41%)	⬆️
unittests	62.16% <86.36%> (+0.41%)	⬆️
unittests1	46.75% <86.36%> (-0.14%)	⬇️
unittests2	27.72% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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.

[Jackie-Jiang]

In order to keep backward compatibility, we will need to introduce versioning into the segment metadata file. Imagine we use the new property reader to read a old metadata file, it will fail to unescape the values, thus reading the wrong values.

We should introduce a new segment metadata version, and ensure there is no escaping in the new version, then we can use this new property reader for the new version. For the old version, we'll need to fall back to the old property reader.

[Jackie-Jiang]

Can we add a test to ensure it can read the old format properly? We can put a old format file into the resource folder, and use the new reader to read it

[abhioncbr]

Can we add a test to ensure it can read the old format properly? We can put a old format file into the resource folder, and use the new reader to read it

Added the required tests.

[abhioncbr]

@Jackie-Jiang / @klsince, any further comments on the implementation side. I am going to start work on it's usage based on the cluster configuration or table configuration.

[abhioncbr]

Based on the offline discussion, we decided to have pair of separate custom segment metadata reader/writer. We will decide to use custom reader/writer based on the version of the segment metadata.

[abhioncbr]

@Jackie-Jiang / @klsince, please review it once more. Thanks

[klsince]

LGTM overall, w/ a few more questions and nits.