[AMORO-4110] Upgrade Iceberg versions with per-engine compatibility modules

[xxubai]

Why are the changes needed?

Amoro is upgrading Iceberg, but different engines (Flink/Spark/Hive) have different compatibility windows for Iceberg artifacts and APIs.
To avoid a one-version-for-all conflict, this PR introduces per-module version overrides and engine-specific compatibility modules, so newer engines can use newer Iceberg while older engines keep compatible versions.

Close #4110.

Brief change log

• Introduce per-module iceberg.version override strategy in mixed-format modules.
• Upgrade Iceberg for newer engines while keeping compatibility for older engines.
• Add Flink 1.17 dedicated compatibility modules:
  • amoro-mixed-flink-common-1.17
  • amoro-mixed-flink-common-iceberg-bridge-1.17
• Adapt Flink-related Iceberg bridge code for new Iceberg APIs:
  • parquet/flink reader path adjustments
  • MiniClusterResource test API compatibility updates
• Adapt mixed-hive code to new Iceberg parquet API changes.
• Adapt Spark parquet readers (v3.3/v3.4/v3.5) for Iceberg API updates.
• Update related tests (including IcebergRewriteExecutorTest) and module wiring in POMs.
• This change set was generated with Codex assistance.

How was this patch tested?

• Add some test cases that check the changes thoroughly including negative and positive cases if possible

• Add screenshots for manual tests if appropriate

• Run test locally before making a pull request

Local verification (examples):

• mvn -pl amoro-format-mixed/amoro-mixed-hive -am -DskipTests compile
• mvn -pl amoro-format-mixed/amoro-mixed-flink/amoro-mixed-flink-common-iceberg-bridge -am -DskipTests compile
• mvn -pl amoro-format-mixed/amoro-mixed-flink/v1.17/amoro-mixed-flink-1.17,amoro-format-mixed/amoro-mixed-flink/v1.18/amoro-mixed-flink-1.18 -am -DskipTests compile
• project package validation (including dist packaging) has been executed in local environment

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 22.42%. Comparing base (e02295b) to head (9aba8b4).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../java/org/apache/amoro/op/MixedOverwriteFiles.java	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #4109      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     22.44%   22.42%   -0.02%     
  Complexity     2552     2552              
============================================
  Files           458      458              
  Lines         42022    42056      +34     
  Branches       5915     5917       +2     
============================================
  Hits           9433     9433              
- Misses        31777    31811      +34     
  Partials        812      812              

Flag	Coverage Δ
trino	22.42% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

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:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.