fix: skip HashJoinExec nodes carrying dynamic filters in JoinSelection

[siddubakka]

Which issue does this PR close?

• Closes JoinSelection should skip HashJoinExec nodes that already carry a dynamic filter instead of failing in swap_inputs #26106.

Rationale for this change

JoinSelection is not safe to run on plans that already carry dynamic filters. This happens during re-optimization passes (e.g. downstream pipelines that wrap an already-optimized plan into a writer sink and re-run physical optimization).

Once FilterPushdown has wired up a dynamic filter between the build side and probe side of a HashJoinExec, swapping the inputs via swap_inputs panics with:

Internal error: Cannot swap HashJoinExec inputs after dynamic filters have been constructed.

The join's build side is already committed at that stage, and swapping inputs would invalidate the dynamic filter expressions that reference probe-side columns. JoinSelection should detect this and leave the HashJoinExec unchanged instead of failing the plan.

What changes are included in this PR?

• In JoinSelection::statistical_join_selection_subrule, check if !hash_join.dynamic_expressions_produced().is_empty() and return None (leaving the plan unchanged).
• In can_swap_hash_join, guard against swapping when dynamic expressions are produced.
• In hash_join_swap_subrule, guard against swapping unbounded left inputs when dynamic expressions are produced.
• Added tests in datafusion/core/tests/physical_optimizer/join_selection.rs verifying that JoinSelection skips HashJoinExec carrying dynamic filters in both CollectLeft and Partitioned modes.

What is the testing strategy for this PR?

Added test_join_selection_skips_hash_join_with_dynamic_filter in datafusion/core/tests/physical_optimizer/join_selection.rs verifying that JoinSelection leaves the plan unchanged for both CollectLeft and Partitioned modes without error.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No API changes. Fixes an internal error when re-optimizing plans that contain dynamic filters.

[zhuqi-lucas]

@siddubakka The CI has some fails, need to make it pass first.

[siddubakka]

@zhuqi-lucas fixed the fmt and test failure, CI should be good now

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 70.83333% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.74%. Comparing base (3ed377a) to head (94976be).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...atafusion/physical-optimizer/src/join_selection.rs	70.83%	3 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #26123      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.74%   82.74%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1147     1147              
  Lines      449767   449771       +4     
  Branches   449767   449771       +4     
==========================================
  Hits       372160   372160              
- Misses      54938    54941       +3     
- Partials    22669    22670       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mikamikasuki]

This attribute makes the current clippy --all-targets --workspace ... -D warnings job fail: Clippy 1.99 denies clippy::allow_attributes and explicitly suggests #[expect]. Replacing it with #[expect(deprecated)] preserves the intended scoped deprecation handling and also warns if the deprecation is later removed.

[siddubakka]

@mikamikasuki thank you for your help i have made the changes now

[siddubakka]

@zhuqi-lucas fixed the clippy failure and the codecov issue (removed an unreachable branch that was dropping coverage). also added a test for it, so everything should be passing now.