Support http communication implement for DLRover Master and Agent.

[BalaBalaYi]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

1. Implement a http server based on tornado in master.
2. Adapt the implementation of the HTTP framework, including both the server and client, without modifying the core business logic, while also maintaining support for gRPC.

Why are the changes needed?

#1366

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

User can specify which service to use for communication between the master and agent by using the parameter --service_type=(http/grpc). For details, please refer: dlrover/docs/deployment/argument.md.

How was this patch tested?

UT + training with grpc type service + training with http type service.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.23433% with 57 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.53%. Comparing base (2f4c582) to head (e4a33a1).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
dlrover/python/master/servicer.py	89.17%	17 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/elastic_agent/master_client.py	92.36%	10 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/common/comm.py	76.31%	9 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/common/http_server.py	87.09%	8 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/tests/test_http_server.py	94.28%	4 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/util/common_util.py	92.72%	4 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/master/dist_master.py	60.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/elastic_agent/tensorflow/hooks.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/python/tests/test_common_util.py	96.29%	1 Missing ⚠️
dlrover/trainer/torch/elastic_run.py	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1429      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.40%   81.53%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files         238      240       +2     
  Lines       23238    23592     +354     
==========================================
+ Hits        18917    19235     +318     
- Misses       4321     4357      +36     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[workingloong]

It is very meaningful job. Can we remove the grpc in the following verison?

[BalaBalaYi]

It is very meaningful job. Can we remove the grpc in the following verison?

Maybe. We need more time and practice to verify the performance, reliability, flexibility, etc., of the HTTP approach.

[majieyue]

so far the code LGTM. but we need some follow up

1. perf report comparing grpc with http
2. security extensions in the future, e.g. basic authentication, crypt/decrypt etc. for now the message with auth is needed to prevent bot sending deprecated messages

[samplise]

lgtm

[BalaBalaYi]

Note: The current implementation only indicates that the 'HTTP mode' is basically functional, but it does not imply that it is suitable for large-scale use in a production environment. We will continue to iterate and enhance the relevant parts until the functionality is stable and the performance meets expectations.