branch-4.0: [fix](iceberg) Fix NPE in COUNT(*) pushdown when snapshot summary omits total-* counters (#64648)

[morningman]

Proposed changes

Backport of #64648 to branch-4.0.

IcebergScanNode.getCountFromSnapshot() read total-equality-deletes /
total-position-deletes / total-records from the Iceberg snapshot summary and
called .equals() / Long.parseLong() directly on the Map.get() results. An
Iceberg snapshot summary is not guaranteed to carry these total-* counters
(snapshots written by compaction/replace, or some writers, may omit them), so
SELECT COUNT(*) threw a NullPointerException on such tables while SELECT *
worked fine.

Fix

• Extract the summary parsing into a pure static
  IcebergUtils.getCountFromSummary(summary, ignoreDanglingDelete) that
  null-checks the counters and falls back to a normal scan (return -1) when any
  required counter is absent, and reuse it from both IcebergScanNode and
  IcebergUtils.getIcebergRowCount().
• BE: IcebergTableReader::init_row_filters() accepts a table-level row count of
  0 (>= 0 instead of > 0) so a genuine pushed-down count of 0 takes the
  CountReader fast path. Applied to this branch's
  be/src/vec/exec/format/table/iceberg_reader.cpp (master's
  iceberg_reader_mixin.h does not exist on this branch).

Unit test IcebergCountPushDownTest covers the missing-counter, no-delete,
equality-delete, position-delete and zero-count cases.

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

[morningman]

run buildall

[hello-stephen]

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 100.00% (1/1) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category	Coverage
Function Coverage	71.44% (25545/35758)
Line Coverage	54.37% (271086/498639)
Region Coverage	51.96% (224834/432718)
Branch Coverage	53.35% (96739/181321)