HDDS-16089. Improve MPU table evaluation efficiency in KeyLifeCycleService

[priyeshkaratha]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

KeyLifecycleService.processMultipartUploads iterated every MPU in a bucket and immediately called OMMultipartUploadUtils.getMultipartOpenKey plus openKeyTable.get(...) before evaluating age or prefix. On buckets
with many active uploads this wasted one key-format resolution and one RocksDB read per MPU, most of which would have been eliminated by the age/prefix check.

Additionally, "orphan" MPUs entries present in multipartInfoTable but whose openKeyTable entry was already removed (e.g. by the old OpenKeyCleanupService before HDDS-9017) were logged as a WARN and skipped entirely, causing them to accumulate in the table forever even when a lifecycle rule plainly covered them.

What is the link to the Apache JIRA

HDDS-16089

How was this patch tested?

Two new integration tests created by claude is added to TestKeyLifecycleService.Normal

Test	What it verifies
testOrphanMpuAbortedByAgeAndPrefixRule	Orphan MPU is aborted alongside a normal MPU when a prefix-only rule matches
testOrphanMpuNotAbortedByTagOnlyRule	Orphan MPU is left untouched when the only applicable rule requires a tag filter

[rich7420]

This re-scan looks unreachable. We only reach here with matchingRule == null, which means the first loop above already found no tag-free rule passing age+prefix (otherwise matchedRuleWithoutTags is set and this whole read block is skipped). This loop tests the same !rule.isTagEnable() && passesAgeAndPrefix(...) condition, so matchingRule stays null and we always fall through to the skip at the if (matchingRule == null) below — the scheduling abort log a few lines down is never hit.

The orphan tag-free case is actually handled by that first loop (it sets matchedRuleWithoutTags and skips the open-key read entirely, which is why testOrphanMpuAbortedByAgeAndPrefixRule passes). Could we drop this loop (and the unreachable success log) and just keep the skip + continue for the orphan-with-only-tag-rules case?

[rich7420]

@priyeshkaratha thanks for the patch!