[Flyte][3][flytepropeller][Attribute Access][flytectl] Binary IDL With MessagePack

[Future-Outlier]

Tracking Issue

Issue #5318

Why are these changes needed?

1. Support attribute access with 100% type correctness.
2. Add support for flytectl to create and get executions.

Note: This PR includes handling of primitive types, Flyte types, and dataclasses.

What changes are proposed in this pull request?

Attribute Access

1. Use MsgPack to deserialize msgpack bytes in Binary Literal.
2. Retrieve attributes from the deserialized object.
3. Serialize the retrieved attributes back to Binary Literal.

flytectl

• When receiving non-string input in flytectl, serialize it to msgpack bytes and create a binary scalar directly.

This version is more concise, avoids redundant words, and clarifies the structure a bit.

How was this patch tested?

Attribute Access

unit tests and remote execution

• remote execution PR: Binary IDL With MessagePack flytekit#2760

flytectl

command line

• create execution

flytectl create execution --execFile build/PR/JSON/stacked_PRs/flytectl/create_task.yaml -p flytesnacks -d development

iamRoleARN: ""
inputs:
    dc:
        a: 1
        b: 3.14
        c: example_string
envs: {}
kubeServiceAcct: ""
targetDomain: ""
targetProject: ""
task: build.PR.JSON.stacked_PRs.flytectl.dataclass_simple.t_simple
version: kNjxOflWVudmuIRR4tLHeQ

• get execution

flytectl get task -d development -p flytesnacks build.PR.JSON.stacked_PRs.flytectl.dataclass_simple.t_simple --execFile build/PR/JSON/stacked_PRs/flytectl/get_task.yaml --version kNjxOflWVudmuIRR4tLHeQ

get_task.yaml

iamRoleARN: ""
inputs:
    dc: {}
envs: {}
kubeServiceAcct: ""
targetDomain: ""
targetProject: ""
task: build.PR.JSON.stacked_PRs.flytectl.dataclass_simple.t_simple
version: kNjxOflWVudmuIRR4tLHeQ

Setup process

single binary

Screenshots

• Unit Tests

• Local Execution
  

• Remote Execution
  

Check all the applicable boxes

• I updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commits are signed-off.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.33333% with 11 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.35%. Comparing base (28f65b3) to head (f68f75c).
Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...opeller/pkg/controller/nodes/attr_path_resolver.go	80.70%	9 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5763      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.30%   36.35%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        1305     1304       -1     
  Lines      110000   110112     +112     
==========================================
+ Hits        39932    40032     +100     
- Misses      65912    65921       +9     
- Partials     4156     4159       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog	51.37% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin	55.61% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests-flytecopilot	12.17% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl	62.21% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteidl	7.16% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️
unittests-flyteplugins	53.35% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytepropeller	42.03% <81.03%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
unittests-flytestdlib	55.37% <ø> (+0.15%)	⬆️

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.

[Future-Outlier]

This is tested here.

https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte/pull/5763/files#diff-288b2f7bad6b7d9d1e9540d1d0d2d33fd6fac4a3d461d5f0769f15e86a069050R458-R468