fix: RangePartitioning with native shuffle

[mbutrovich]

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes #1906.

Rationale for this change

#1862 tried to implement RangePartitioning with native shuffle. The implementation didn't work because executors calculated their own partition boundaries.

What changes are included in this PR?

This modifies the flow for the driver to calculate the boundaries (like Spark). At a high level:

• Hoist code from Spark's ShuffleExchangeExec for using Spark's RangePartitioner to calculate boundary rows.
• Serialize boundary rows to native side.
• Deserialize boundary rows and pass as part of the partitioning scheme. Each executor should have the boundary values now.

How are these changes tested?

• New test implementing RangePartitioning does not yield correct results with native shuffle #1906.

Remaining concerns

• What is the performance implication of iterating over these batches to calculate the bounds at the driver? Are we introducing significant overhead? It's what Spark does, but how does this approach affect Comet?
• Should we remove the code for calculating boundary rows in native code? It's possible we (or someone else) might want this, so I left the tests and annotated them to allow dead code.
• I change the default to enable this feature, but we can discuss setting it to false. For now I want to see how it does in CI.
• I need to generate new golden plans if we decide to enable this feature by default.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.66667% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 44.29%. Comparing base (f09f8af) to head (522ef80).
⚠️ Report is 430 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...t/execution/shuffle/CometNativeShuffleWriter.scala	73.52%	4 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...t/execution/shuffle/CometShuffleExchangeExec.scala	96.29%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #2258       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     56.12%   44.29%   -11.83%     
- Complexity      976     1106      +130     
=============================================
  Files           119      143       +24     
  Lines         11743    13373     +1630     
  Branches       2251     2397      +146     
=============================================
- Hits           6591     5924      -667     
- Misses         4012     6420     +2408     
+ Partials       1140     1029      -111     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mbutrovich]

The next challenge to figure out is adding some flexibility for dictionary-encoded columns. The current approach with one schema is too rigid.