Parsing Json_arrayagg and Json_objectagg to allow some queries to work

[GuptaManan100]

Description

This PR fixes the issue described in #16250. As pointed out in the issue, the problem is coming because we don't explicitly parse the two constructs. This PR fixes this problem by adding explicit parsing support for both of them and making them implement the AggrFunc interface to allow the planner to know that these are aggregation functions. End to end tests have been added to verify that the case described in the issue work as intended after the changes in this PR.

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Bug Report: Json_ArrayAgg and Json_ObjectAgg not working in having clause #16250

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 20.00000% with 20 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 68.61%. Comparing base (7a737f4) to head (4db4343).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/sqlparser/ast.go	11.76%	15 Missing ⚠️
go/vt/sqlparser/ast_format.go	37.50%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main   #16251   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.61%   68.61%           
=======================================
  Files        1544     1544           
  Lines      197993   198016   +23     
=======================================
+ Hits       135848   135869   +21     
- Misses      62145    62147    +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[harshit-gangal]

can you add a negative plan test for it?