[flytepropeller][flyteadmin] Compiler unknown literal type error handling

[Future-Outlier]

Why are the changes needed?

To avoid a crash when a new IDL type is sent to the propeller or admin.

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

Add error handling and prevent crashes in these sections of the code.

How was this patch tested?

most unit tests, and 1 Python example in the comments below.

Setup process

flyteidl: pip install git+https://github.com/flyteorg/flyte.git@2c9cbd89dce53acd1cb90cc042012637ae6c31f8#subdirectory=flyteidl
flytekit: flyteorg/flytekit#2741

python example:

from flytekit import task, workflow, ImageSpec

flytekit_hash = "c24077bce6e63bf8df0d80dbc2c5e2ff3322bca8"

flytekit = f"git+https://github.com/flyteorg/flytekit.git@{flytekit_hash}"

image = ImageSpec(
    packages=[flytekit],
    apt_packages=["git"],
    registry="localhost:30000",
)

@task(container_image=image)
def dict_task(input: dict) -> dict:
    print("Dict fields:")
    for k, v in input.items():
        print(type(k), type(v))
        print(k, v)
    return input

@workflow
def dict_wf(input: dict) -> dict:
    return dict_task(input=input)

if __name__ == "__main__":
    from flytekit.clis.sdk_in_container import pyflyte
    from click.testing import CliRunner

    runner = CliRunner()
    path = "/Users/future-outlier/code/dev/flytekit/build/PR/JSON/demo/dict_example.py"
    result = runner.invoke(pyflyte.main,
                    ["run",
                            path,
                            "dict_wf",
                            "--input",
                            '{"a": 1, "b": 2, "c": [1, 2, 3], "d": {"e": 1, "f": [1, 2, 3]}}'])
    print("Local Execution: ", result.output)
    #
    result = runner.invoke(pyflyte.main,
                           ["run",
                            "--remote",
                            path,
                            "dict_wf",
                            "--input",
                            '{"a": 1, "b": 2, "c": [1, 2, 3], "d": {"e": 1, "f": [1, 2, 3]}}'])
    print("Remote Execution: ", result.output)

Screenshots

Check all the applicable boxes

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

Related PRs

#5612

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 71.11111% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 36.31%. Comparing base (c0fc6d4) to head (455d50c).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
flytepropeller/pkg/compiler/validators/utils.go	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
flyteadmin/pkg/errors/errors.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5651      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   36.30%   36.31%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1305     1305              
  Lines      110002   110051      +49     
==========================================
+ Hits        39932    39964      +32     
- Misses      65914    65932      +18     
+ Partials     4156     4155       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests-datacatalog	51.37% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteadmin	55.58% <80.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
unittests-flytecopilot	12.17% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytectl	62.21% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteidl	7.12% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flyteplugins	53.35% <ø> (ø)
unittests-flytepropeller	41.93% <66.66%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unittests-flytestdlib	55.35% <ø> (+0.13%)	⬆️

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]

Hi, @eapolinario
Do you want to take a look?