[FLINK-28732][state] Deprecate ambiguous StateTTLConfig#cleanFullSnapshot API

[Myasuka]

What is the purpose of the change

This PR deprecates the ambiguous StateTTLConfig#cleanFullSnapshot API with the newly introduced #cleanupOnFullScanSnapshot API.

Brief change log

1. Deprecate the StateTTLConfig#cleanFullSnapshot API
2. Introduce StateTTLConfig#cleanupOnFullScanSnapshot API
3. Add docs to describe the difference.

Verifying this change

This change is already covered by existing tests.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): no
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): yes
• The serializers: no
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): no
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: no
• The S3 file system connector: no

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? no
• If yes, how is the feature documented? no

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• b755b28636af0c443153c8dabe9993014dbb9d02 Azure: FAILURE

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[Myasuka]

@pnowojski , @rkhachatryan could you please take a look at this?

[Myasuka]

@rkhachatryan do you have more concerns? My private build is successful: https://dev.azure.com/myasuka/flink/_build/results?buildId=429&view=results.

[rkhachatryan]

I'm concerned about introducing the unnecessary term (from my perspective), but I wouldn't mind merging this PR as it is.

[Myasuka]

Would you please approve this PR @rkhachatryan if no more concerns?

[rkhachatryan]

I still have the same concern. Probably someone else would disagree with me and approve the PR, I'd be absolutely fine with that.

[Myasuka]

I still have the same https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/20421#discussion_r940348087. Probably someone else would disagree with me and approve the PR, I'd be absolutely fine with that.

It was too close to the feature freeze date to ask someone else to review, I think we should make the code clean instead of rushing the changes. I would not drive this PR merged in 1.16 with existing concerns.