[cleanup] Cleanup some duplicated code

[zymap]

---

Motivation

Move the implementation to one place and avoid duplicated implementation

Fixes #xyz

Main Issue: #xyz

PIP: #xyz

Motivation

Modifications

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 the box was checked, please highlight the changes

• Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency)
• The public API
• The schema
• The default values of configurations
• The threading model
• The binary protocol
• The REST endpoints
• The admin CLI options
• The metrics
• Anything that affects deployment

Documentation

• doc
• doc-required
• doc-not-needed
• doc-complete

Matching PR in forked repository

PR in forked repository:

[hangc0276]

Look like the numberOfMessages only impact the interceptor. To minimal the changes in the code, we do not touch the new interfaces in transaction.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 74.53%. Comparing base (bbc6224) to head (b0372e4).
Report is 537 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #23204      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     73.57%   74.53%   +0.95%     
- Complexity    32624    34170    +1546     
============================================
  Files          1877     1917      +40     
  Lines        139502   144609    +5107     
  Branches      15299    15811     +512     
============================================
+ Hits         102638   107778    +5140     
+ Misses        28908    28584     -324     
- Partials       7956     8247     +291     

Flag	Coverage Δ
inttests	27.71% <75.00%> (+3.13%)	⬆️
systests	24.70% <50.00%> (+0.37%)	⬆️
unittests	73.88% <100.00%> (+1.04%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
...che/bookkeeper/mledger/impl/ManagedLedgerImpl.java	81.83% <100.00%> (+1.17%)	⬆️
...sar/broker/service/persistent/PersistentTopic.java	79.33% <100.00%> (+0.87%)	⬆️

... and 528 files with indirect coverage changes

[shibd]

Can we use 0 to keep original behaviour?

If this is set to 1, then the content originally written via this interface will go through the broker metadata interceptor.

For example, commitTxn or abortTxn, which will cause the index maintained in AppendIndexMetadataInterceptor to increment incorrectly.

Maybe the implicit behavior of this method(asyncAddEntry(ByteBuf buffer, AddEntryCallback callback, Object ctx)) is that calling this interface does not tuch the broker metadata interceptor.

Then, modifying the append of a normal transaction message should call the interface that passes in numberOfMessage.

[lhotari]

@shibd Please report an issue to track this. It seems that there are untested and undocumented behaviors in the original implementation that aren't tested if this change was possible.