[fix](http) Fall back to ranged GET when HEAD is rejected for HTTP file size probe

[zghong]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #66527

Problem Summary:

When reading an HTTP resource (e.g. via the HTTP TVF), both BE (HttpFileReader)
and FE (HttpUtils) first send an HTTP HEAD request to obtain the file size from
the Content-Length header. Some resources reject HEAD requests -- most notably
presigned object-storage URLs whose signature covers the HTTP method, so a URL
signed for GET is rejected with 403 when accessed via HEAD, even though the same
URL works fine with GET. In that case the HEAD failure aborted opening the file,
making such presigned URLs unusable.

Fix: a HEAD failure (or a HEAD response without a usable size) no longer aborts
the open path. Instead it falls back to a ranged GET (Range: bytes=0-0), which
mirrors the actual read path and recovers the total size from the Content-Range
header on a 206 Partial Content response (format bytes <start>-<end>/<total>,
with * treated as unknown), or from Content-Length on a 200 response.

• BE: HttpFileReader::open now issues the HEAD probe without failing on error;
  if no size is obtained it reuses the existing ranged-GET Range-support probe to
  recover the size. A new HttpClient::get_content_range_total parses the total
  from the Content-Range header.
• FE: HttpUtils.getHttpFileSize is split into tryGetFileSizeWithHead and
  tryGetFileSizeWithGetRange, attempting HEAD first and falling back to the
  ranged GET, parsing Content-Range/Content-Length accordingly.

Before the fix presigned GET-only URLs failed to open with a HEAD 403 error;
after the fix the file size is resolved via the ranged GET and the read succeeds.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test: regression-test/suites/external_table_p0/tvf/test_http_tvf.groovy
  • Unit Test: BE be/test/io/fs/http_file_reader_test.cpp, FE HttpUtilsTest.java
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label