Add POST /tableConfigs/tune endpoint to apply tuning and return tuned config

[rseetham]

What is this PR doing / why is it needed?

The existing POST /tableConfigs/validate endpoint validates the provided TableConfigs and returns the input as-is (modulo database name translation). However, the actual create (POST /tableConfigs) and update (PUT /tableConfigs/{tableName}) paths apply additional tuning before persisting:

• Tuner configs (e.g. realtimeAutoIndexTuner)
• Minimum replicas enforcement
• Dimension table storage quota constraints

This means callers have no way to preview what would actually be stored without performing the real operation.

This PR adds a new POST /tableConfigs/tune endpoint that validates the TableConfigs and then applies the same tuning as create/update, returning the resulting config. This lets callers preview the final tuned config before committing.

Changes

• Added POST /tableConfigs/tune endpoint in TableConfigsRestletResource
• Refactored shared parsing/validation/permission-check logic into a private parseAndValidateTableConfigs helper, used by both validate and tune endpoints
• Renamed private tuneConfig(TableConfig, Schema) helper to applyTuning to avoid name collision with the new public endpoint method
• Added forTableConfigsTune() to ControllerRequestURLBuilder
• Added testTuneConfig test in TableConfigsRestletResourceTest covering: invalid input, min replicas, dim table quota, tuner config application, and unrecognized properties passthrough

Testing Done

All existing TableConfigsRestletResourceTest tests pass. New testTuneConfig test added and passing.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.65217% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 63.35%. Comparing base (abdb6cb) to head (4c2987d).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ler/api/resources/TableConfigsRestletResource.java	95.45%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #18056      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     63.34%   63.35%   +0.01%     
+ Complexity     1543     1540       -3     
============================================
  Files          3200     3200              
  Lines        194222   194237      +15     
  Branches      29934    29931       -3     
============================================
+ Hits         123026   123065      +39     
+ Misses        61526    61509      -17     
+ Partials       9670     9663       -7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
custom-integration1	100.00% <ø> (ø)
integration	100.00% <ø> (ø)
integration1	100.00% <ø> (ø)
integration2	0.00% <ø> (ø)
java-11	63.30% <95.65%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
java-21	63.32% <95.65%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
temurin	63.35% <95.65%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
unittests	63.35% <95.65%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
unittests1	55.52% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unittests2	34.26% <95.65%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.