[Functions]Support protobuf schema for pulsar function

[tuteng]

Fixes #

(or if this PR is one task of a github issue, please add Master Issue: #<xyz> to link to the master issue.)

Master Issue: #

Motivation

Some users have encountered the following exception when using the protobuf schema, so add the relevant dependencies to the instance:

ERROR org.apache.pulsar.functions.instance.JavaInstanceRunnable - Sink open produced uncaught exception:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: com.google.protobuf.GeneratedMessageV3 is not assignable from bold.proto.PersonOuterClass$Person
	at org.apache.pulsar.client.impl.schema.ProtobufSchema.of(ProtobufSchema.java:110) ~

Modifications

• Add the relevant dependencies to the instance

Verifying this change

• Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.

(Please pick either of the following options)

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

(or)

This change is already covered by existing tests, such as (please describe tests).

(or)

This change added tests and can be verified as follows:

(example:)

• Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (10MB)
• Extended integration test for recovery after broker failure

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

If yes was chosen, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API: (yes / no)
• The schema: (yes / no / don't know)
• The default values of configurations: (yes / no)
• The wire protocol: (yes / no)
• The rest endpoints: (yes / no)
• The admin cli options: (yes / no)
• Anything that affects deployment: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

For contributor

For this PR, do we need to update docs?

• If yes, please update docs or create a follow-up issue if you need help.

• If no, please explain why.

For committer

For this PR, do we need to update docs?

• If yes,

  • if you update docs in this PR, label this PR with the doc label.

  • if you plan to update docs later, label this PR with the doc-required label.

  • if you need help on updating docs, create a follow-up issue with the doc-required label.

• If no, label this PR with the no-need-doc label and explain why.

[gaoran10]

LGTM

[eolivelli]

Lgtm

It would be better to follow up and include an integration test.
Because we are actively working on the classpath for functions and I wouldn't like to see this broken

[tuteng]

Lgtm

It would be better to follow up and include an integration test.
Because we are actively working on the classpath for functions and I wouldn't like to see this broken

Thanks, I created an issue #11711 to track it and I will consider adding integration tests in the next pr.

[tuteng]

/pulsarbot run-failure-checks

[Anonymitaet]

@tuteng Thanks for your contribution. For this PR, do we need to update docs?

(The PR template contains info about doc, which helps others know more about the changes. Can you provide doc-related info in this and future PR descriptions? Thanks)

[tuteng]

@tuteng Thanks for your contribution. For this PR, do we need to update docs?

(The PR template contains info about doc, which helps others know more about the changes. Can you provide doc-related info in this and future PR descriptions? Thanks)

I think don't need to update the document, the document already exists.