fix: consider nulls_first when propagating ordered SortProperties - #24206

…ache#24206)

## Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123.
-->

- Closes apache#11596.

## Rationale for this change

<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.

Please explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the
user-visible
behavior, rather than the implementation.

For example, "The code in `foo.rs` doesn't handle nulls" is a symptom of
the
implementation. "COUNT(DISTINCT) returns wrong results when the column
contains
nulls" is the user-visible problem.
-->

In the original implementation, cases where `null_first` is not same
were not correctly handled and were still treated as `ordered`.


Example: `a` sorted `ASC NULLS FIRST`, `b` sorted `ASC NULLS LAST`:

| a    | b    | a + b |
| ---- | ---- | ----- |
| NULL | 1    | NULL  |
| 1    | 2    | 3     |
| 2    | 4    | 6     |
| 3    | NULL | NULL  |

Since `a + b` is `NULL` wherever either input is, the result has nulls
at both ends. The previous code returned `Ordered(ASC, nulls_first:
true)` for this case; it now returns `Unordered`.


## What changes are included in this PR?

<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here, but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->
Unit Tests were added and issues were fixed. Additional processing was
performed on `and_or` (see
apache#11596 (comment)
)

SortProperties::{add, sub, gt_or_gteq, and_or} now propagate an Ordered
result only when both operands agree on nulls_first; otherwise they
return Unordered.

This is conservative. If one input were known to be non-null the old
result could be valid. But SortProperties carries no nullability
information, so Unordered is the only sound answer at this layer.
## Are these changes tested?

<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code

If tests are not included in your PR, please explain why (for example,
are they covered by existing tests)?
-->
Yes.

## Are there any user-facing changes?

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.

If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
No.

## Which issue does this PR close?

<!--
We generally require a GitHub issue to be filed for all bug fixes and
enhancements and this helps us generate change logs for our releases.
You can link an issue to this PR using the GitHub syntax. For example
`Closes apache#123` indicates that this PR will close issue apache#123.
-->

Part of apache#24243 

## Rationale for this change

<!--
Why are you proposing this change? If this is already explained clearly
in the issue then this section is not needed.
Explaining clearly why changes are proposed helps reviewers understand
your changes and offer better suggestions for fixes.

Please explain the problem you are trying to solve in terms of the
user-visible
behavior, rather than the implementation.

For example, "The code in `foo.rs` doesn't handle nulls" is a symptom of
the
implementation. "COUNT(DISTINCT) returns wrong results when the column
contains
nulls" is the user-visible problem.
-->
The equivalence fuzz tests never generated NULLs. So they could not
catch NULL-ordering bugs in `SortProperties` propagation such as apache#11596
and apache#24208.


## What changes are included in this PR?

<!--
There is no need to duplicate the description in the issue here, but it
is sometimes worth providing a summary of the individual changes in this
PR.
-->
- Generated columns contain NULLs at configurable rates (`NULL_PCTS =
[0.0, 0.1, 0.5]`), crossed with every seed; the schema is nullable only
when the rate is non-zero.
- `create_random_schema` picks random `SortOptions` for each ordering
key.
- Requirements with random `SortOptions` are checked only for soundness:
if `ordering_satisfy` accepts an ordering, the data must be sorted by
it. The converse is not checked, since one batch can be sorted by
coincidence (e.g. NULLs of independent columns landing in the same
rows). For the same reason, `contains_overflowable_arithmetic` is
renamed to `contains_conservative_ordering_op` and also covers
comparisons and `AND`/`OR`.

## What is the testing strategy for this PR?

<!--
We typically require tests for all PRs in order to:
1. Prevent the code from being accidentally broken by subsequent changes
2. Serve as another way to document the expected behavior of the code

Briefly describe how this PR is tested, and point to the specific tests
you added. For example: 'This new feature is covered by the
`sqllogictest` cases added in `foo.slt`'.

If this PR does not add tests, explain why. For example, if the change
is already covered by existing tests, please mention it.

You should also check the `codecov` bot reply on this PR to confirm the
changed code is exercised.
-->


Test-only change. Verified locally that reverting the fixes from apache#24276
and apache#24206 makes `test_ordering_satisfy_with_equivalence_complex_random`
fail, and that it passes on main:

```bash
git revert -n ceaef16 4042812
cargo test -p datafusion --test fuzz --features extended_tests equivalence
#  test_ordering_satisfy_with_equivalence_complex_random fails
```

## Are there any user-facing changes?

<!--
If there are user-facing changes then we may require documentation to be
updated before approving the PR.

If there are any breaking changes to public APIs, please add the `api
change` label.
-->
No