pkg/domain: remove duplicate EtcdClient() method

[Copilot]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #64313

Problem Summary: (*Domain).EtcdClient() and (*Domain).GetEtcdClient() are duplicates serving identical purposes.

What changed and how does it work?

Removed EtcdClient() method and migrated all call sites to GetEtcdClient():

• pkg/domain/domain.go: Removed duplicate EtcdClient() method definition
• Updated 4 call sites in pkg/ddl/schema_test.go, pkg/session/sync_upgrade.go, pkg/session/bootstrap_test.go, and tests/realtikvtest/brietest/pitr_test.go

GetEtcdClient() chosen as standard (14 existing usages vs 4 for EtcdClient()).

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

---

💬 We'd love your input! Share your thoughts on Copilot coding agent in our 2 minute survey.

[ti-chi-bot]

Hi @Copilot. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a pingcap member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[tiprow]

Hi @Copilot. Thanks for your PR.

PRs from untrusted users cannot be marked as trusted with /ok-to-test in this repo meaning untrusted PR authors can never trigger tests themselves. Collaborators can still trigger tests on the PR using /test all.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[lance6716]

/ok-to-test

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 75.9426%. Comparing base (5541db5) to head (c3dc20f).
⚠️ Report is 34 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #64328        +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage   72.7218%   75.9426%   +3.2208%     
================================================
  Files          1861       1889        +28     
  Lines        504726     525627     +20901     
================================================
+ Hits         367046     399175     +32129     
+ Misses       115367     103056     -12311     
- Partials      22313      23396      +1083     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	49.2480% <0.0000%> (?)
unit	73.6868% <100.0000%> (+1.3983%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	52.8700% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	63.3857% <ø> (+17.1968%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[lance6716]

/retest

[wuhuizuo]

@copilot please keep html comment elements in pull request description according to the pull request template!.

[Copilot]

@copilot please keep html comment elements in pull request description according to the pull request template!.

Updated the PR description to preserve all HTML comment elements from the template.

[lance6716]

/cc @D3Hunter

[lance6716]

/cc @yudongusa

[ti-chi-bot]

@lance6716: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: yudongusa.

Note that only pingcap members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

Details

In response to this:

/cc @yudongusa

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2025-11-07 02:30:51.083623867 +0000 UTC m=+410100.526653746: ☑️ agreed by zimulala.
• 2025-11-07 07:58:46.183286531 +0000 UTC m=+429775.626316409: ☑️ agreed by D3Hunter.

[lance6716]

ptal @yudongusa @benmeadowcroft

[yudongusa]

How can we ensure no more further calls to EtcdClient()?

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: D3Hunter, yudongusa, zimulala

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [D3Hunter,zimulala]
• pkg/ddl/OWNERS [D3Hunter]
• pkg/domain/OWNERS [D3Hunter]
• pkg/session/OWNERS [yudongusa]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[lance6716]

How can we ensure no more further calls to EtcdClient()?

Not quite clear about your question 🤔 In this PR because it can compile, all callers should be switched to GetEtcdClient. And in future when developers still want to use EtcdClient as they did in the past, their IDE code completion should notice them there's only GetEtcdClient.

/retest