feature: saga annotation

[wt-better]

Support the two-phase transaction of saga annotation.

1. Saga branch transactions are divided into two phases. Unlike tcc, the first phase is directly submitted without the second phase. It is a degenerate tcc.
2. Add the annotation CompensationBusinessAction, which needs to be added to the service interface or implementation of the saga mode branch transaction
3. Compared with the state machine, the saga annotation mode currently does not support the forward retry function.
4. The saga annotation mode currently does not support the anti-hanging function.

In order to support the above functions, we have also made the following changes/optimizations:

1. The historical implementation of DefaultResouecePasser will cause a resource to be registered multiple times; in order to avoid excessive abstraction and reduce the complexity of parsing cost, i was removed it.

[wt-better]

link: #5300

Changes:

1. Remove the dependency of saga annotation on tcc. This method is heavy, and tcc has more customized logic, such as tccHook. Independent development is a better solution

2. Fix the duplication of saga annotation interfacerparser type

3. Remove DefaultResouecePasser and corresponding implementation to avoid over-abstraction and time-consuming parsing

4. Resolve conflicts with the latest branch

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 65.09434% with 37 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 52.60%. Comparing base (34990eb) to head (097dd3a).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...egration/tx/api/interceptor/ActionContextUtil.java	6.25%	15 Missing ⚠️
...a/org/apache/seata/common/util/ReflectionUtil.java	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
...interceptor/parser/TccActionInterceptorParser.java	86.48%	2 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...interceptor/parser/TccActionInterceptorParser.java	85.71%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ta/server/transaction/saga/SagaAnnotationCore.java	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                2.x    #6973      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     52.61%   52.60%   -0.02%     
+ Complexity     6590     6579      -11     
============================================
  Files          1126     1124       -2     
  Lines         40004    39969      -35     
  Branches       4696     4688       -8     
============================================
- Hits          21050    21024      -26     
+ Misses        16946    16938       -8     
+ Partials       2008     2007       -1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...n/java/org/apache/seata/core/model/BranchType.java	80.00% <100.00%> (+1.42%)	⬆️
...tion/tx/api/interceptor/InvocationHandlerType.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...ta/server/transaction/saga/SagaAnnotationCore.java	75.00% <75.00%> (ø)
...interceptor/parser/TccActionInterceptorParser.java	87.50% <86.48%> (-7.96%)	⬇️
...interceptor/parser/TccActionInterceptorParser.java	72.72% <85.71%> (+8.44%)	⬆️
...a/org/apache/seata/common/util/ReflectionUtil.java	69.03% <0.00%> (-4.09%)	⬇️
...egration/tx/api/interceptor/ActionContextUtil.java	30.47% <6.25%> (-3.94%)	⬇️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

[funky-eyes]

为什么还要用@LocalTCC，注解化saga应该跟TCC有明显的类名和注解的区分
Why use @LocalTCC? Annotated saga should be clearly distinguished from TCC by class names and annotations

[wt-better]

Saga annotation is generally used for rpc, localTcc will be parsed into remote bean, for the convenience of testing

[wt-better]

Fixed, use class annotation instead.

[slievrly]

whether the SPI interface in the compatibility package are no longer supported?

[wt-better]

Yes, we hope to upgrade to the Apache package to use the new features. The compatibility package is not a long solution.

[wt-better]

RegisterResourceParser design is too complex, currently only used in tcc proxy registry, and there are few scenarios for extended use, so it is decide not compatible