feat(storage): bump opendal to v0.49.0

[chenzl25]

I hereby agree to the terms of the RisingWave Labs, Inc. Contributor License Agreement.

What's changed and what's your intention?

• As title

Checklist

• I have written necessary rustdoc comments
• I have added necessary unit tests and integration tests
• I have added test labels as necessary. See details.
• I have added fuzzing tests or opened an issue to track them. (Optional, recommended for new SQL features Sqlsmith: Sql feature generation #7934).
• My PR contains breaking changes. (If it deprecates some features, please create a tracking issue to remove them in the future).
• All checks passed in ./risedev check (or alias, ./risedev c)
• My PR changes performance-critical code. (Please run macro/micro-benchmarks and show the results.)

• My PR contains critical fixes that are necessary to be merged into the latest release. (Please check out the details)

Documentation

• My PR needs documentation updates. (Please use the Release note section below to summarize the impact on users)

Release note

If this PR includes changes that directly affect users or other significant modifications relevant to the community, kindly draft a release note to provide a concise summary of these changes. Please prioritize highlighting the impact these changes will have on users.

[wcy-fdu]

Is there any special reason to bump? I think every time we bump OpenDAL we need to do a lot of testing in aws, gcp and azure environments.

[chenzl25]

Is there any special reason to bump? I think every time we bump OpenDAL we need to do a lot of testing in aws, gcp and azure environments.

No special purpose 🥵 . Previously I suspected some bug in v0.47 opendal, but actually not. However, I already have finished the coding part, so just create a PR by the way.

[wcy-fdu]

Is there any special reason to bump? I think every time we bump OpenDAL we need to do a lot of testing in aws, gcp and azure environments.

No special purpose 🥵 . Previously I suspected some bug in the low-level opendal, but actually not. However, I already have finished the coding part, so just create a PR by the way.

Thanks for the efforts first🙌.
As we already do some test on OpenDAL 0.47 for realsed 2.0, Patrick do you think we should bump to 0.49 as well? Or just hold this pr for a while and merge it when needed. I have no preference, I can help with testing if needed. It's up to you to decide cc @hzxa21

[hzxa21]

Is there any special reason to bump? I think every time we bump OpenDAL we need to do a lot of testing in aws, gcp and azure environments.

No special purpose 🥵 . Previously I suspected some bug in the low-level opendal, but actually not. However, I already have finished the coding part, so just create a PR by the way.

Thanks for the efforts first🙌. As we already do some test on OpenDAL 0.47 for realsed 2.0, Patrick do you think we should bump to 0.49 as well? Or just hold this pr for a while and merge it when needed. I have no preference, I can help with testing if needed. It's up to you to decide cc @hzxa21

There is no technical blocker of upgrading OpenDAL to the latest version if we think the latest version is also stable. We just need to run all the tests needed to make sure we are confident about this version before merging.

To reduce risks, I suggest we don't bump OpenDAL to latest in 2.0 given that 0.47 is the version we have proved working with several rounds of bug fixing and testing. I think we can certify OpenDAL 0.49 with the same tests we did for 0.47 before merging this PR to main, without blocking release 2.0. @wcy-fdu can decide the schedule because you are more familiar with OpenDAL than us.

[wcy-fdu]

can decide the schedule because you are more familiar with OpenDAL than us.

Let's first run all the tests based on this pr, and merge this pr into main if all pass.
And let’s not cherry pick version 2.0 yet. We can continue testing during the release test of version 2.1.

I will run test based on this PR later, so just hold for a while.

[github-actions]

license-eye has totally checked 5396 files.

Valid	Invalid	Ignored	Fixed
2296	1	3099	0

Click to see the invalid file list

• src/connector/src/parser/protobuf/recursive.rs

[wcy-fdu]

I run longevity test and perf test based on this branch, and both look good to me(detailed in #18590). So I think this upgrade is safe.
I will resolve the conflict.
cc @hzxa21 @Li0k for another review.

[hzxa21]

LGTM