allow interleaveExec to support Range partioning

[Rich-T-kid]

Which issue does this PR close?

• works towards [EPIC] Implement Range Partitioning #22395
• Closes Allow InterleaveExec to preserve Partitioning::Range #23455.

Rationale for this change

see #23455

What changes are included in this PR?

The goal of this PR is to allow range partitioning to propagate through InterleaveExec. Updated can_interleave() to accept Partitioning::Range when all children share an identical RangePartitioning (same ordering and split points), matching the existing behavior for Partitioning::Hash.

Updated range_partitioning.slt to expect InterleaveExec where it previously expected UnionExec, since can_interleave() now accepts Partitioning::Range.

Are these changes tested?

yes, the range_partioning.slt file as well as the union.slt file sql logic test. This PR also includes three test.

Are there any user-facing changes?

physical plans may look different now.

[gene-bordegaray]

some comments on tests but overall looks good

could we also add smoke test in enforce_distribution.rs for smoke tests (see other related PR)s

thank you 🙇

[gene-bordegaray]

what do you think about making this a general distribution since that seems to be lacking in the file. A matrixs test case like:

1. matching hash
2. matching range
3. subset hash
4. subset range

then equivalently below we can have the ngative test for distributions that interleave shouldnt accept:

1. mixing hash and range
2. incompatible hashes
3. incompatible ranges
4. sort and null order variants for ranges
5. etc

just a thought lmk

[Rich-T-kid]

This sounds great. Ill update the PR

[gene-bordegaray]

could we also add:

1. a sub set test
2. negative test (fallback to union)
3. union into another operator test to ensure propagation

[Rich-T-kid]

subset range

@gene-bordegaray are you referring to a case like
[10,20]
[10,15]

this shouldn't be accepted right? Interleave should fall back to unionExec in this case.

[gene-bordegaray]

subset range

@gene-bordegaray are you referring to a case like [10,20] [10,15]

this shouldn't be accepted right? Interleave should fall back to unionExec in this case.

@Rich-T-kid yes exactly 🙇

[Rich-T-kid]

@gene-bordegaray this is ready for review now

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 72.05882% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@2e78508). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
datafusion/physical-plan/src/union.rs	72.05%	2 Missing and 17 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #23623   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   80.65%           
=======================================
  Files           ?     1086           
  Lines           ?   366165           
  Branches        ?   366165           
=======================================
  Hits            ?   295317           
  Misses          ?    53236           
  Partials        ?    17612           

☔ 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.

[gene-bordegaray]

apprved once last things addressed. thakn you 👍

cc: @gabotechs

[Rich-T-kid]

updated the PR to address your comments.
Thanks @gene-bordegaray 🚀

[gabotechs]

Thanks @Rich-T-kid and @gene-bordegaray, this looks good to me.