[improve][ci] Add ml for CI semantic check.

[Technoboy-]

Motivation

As some patches(like #18078 ) are only for managed-ledger, so add this label.

Documentation

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

[tisonkun]

managed-ledger should be covered by storage already?

[mattisonchao]

LGTM

[poorbarcode]

How can I tell ml and storage?

[nodece]

I prefer using storage instead of ml.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #18082 (38e8f72) into master (6c65ca0) will increase coverage by 11.93%.
The diff coverage is 57.69%.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #18082       +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage     34.91%   46.85%   +11.93%     
- Complexity     5707    17876    +12169     
=============================================
  Files           607     1574      +967     
  Lines         53396   128320    +74924     
  Branches       5712    14116     +8404     
=============================================
+ Hits          18644    60122    +41478     
- Misses        32119    61973    +29854     
- Partials       2633     6225     +3592     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	46.85% <57.69%> (+11.93%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...org/apache/pulsar/broker/ServiceConfiguration.java	52.07% <ø> (ø)
.../service/SystemTopicBasedTopicPoliciesService.java	62.97% <0.00%> (+11.38%)	⬆️
.../pulsar/broker/stats/BrokerOperabilityMetrics.java	100.00% <ø> (+7.35%)	⬆️
...g/apache/pulsar/compaction/CompactedTopicImpl.java	73.57% <0.00%> (+62.85%)	⬆️
...va/org/apache/pulsar/client/impl/ConsumerBase.java	21.95% <0.00%> (ø)
...ache/pulsar/functions/utils/io/ConnectorUtils.java	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../org/apache/pulsar/broker/admin/v2/Namespaces.java	56.85% <50.00%> (+48.82%)	⬆️
...he/pulsar/functions/worker/rest/api/SinksImpl.java	36.82% <50.00%> (ø)
...apache/pulsar/proxy/server/DirectProxyHandler.java	63.63% <50.00%> (ø)
...ulsar/functions/worker/rest/api/ComponentImpl.java	25.26% <57.14%> (ø)
... and 1156 more

[tisonkun]

@lhotari could you answer the question above? Doesn't storage scope already cover ml added here?

If it's the case, we should revert this patch.

[Technoboy-]

@lhotari could you answer the question above? Doesn't storage scope already cover ml added here?

If it's the case, we should revert this patch.

We'd better define these by modules. storage convers ml, but not accurate.
In the scope, broker covers admin and txn.

[tisonkun]

@Technoboy- then what kind of changes should go into storage? Or we can just replace it with ml?

Besides, ml is easy to be read as "machine learning" while we have the comment and it's a learned knowledge for dedicated developers :)