[Chore](utils) make Defer allow throw exception

[BiteTheDDDDt]

What problem does this PR solve?

This pull request improves the safety and robustness of the Defer utility by enhancing its exception handling during destruction and adds unit tests to verify the new behavior. The main focus is to ensure that exceptions thrown by deferred closures are handled correctly, especially during stack unwinding, to prevent unexpected program termination.

Enhancements to exception handling in Defer:

• Updated the destructor of the Defer class in defer_op.h to distinguish between normal destruction and stack unwinding:
  • If an exception is already active (stack unwinding), any exception thrown by the deferred closure is caught and swallowed, with a warning logged instead of calling std::terminate.
  • If no exception is active, exceptions from the closure are allowed to propagate. The destructor is now marked noexcept(false) to permit this. [1] [2]

Testing improvements:

• Added a new test file defer_op_test.cpp with unit tests to verify:
  • That exceptions from the deferred closure propagate when not unwinding.
  • That exceptions are swallowed (and do not cause termination) when the destructor runs during stack unwinding.

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • 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

[Thearas]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

[BiteTheDDDDt]

run buildall

[BiteTheDDDDt]

run buildall

[hello-stephen]

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 88.89% (16/18) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category	Coverage
Function Coverage	52.62% (17939/34089)
Line Coverage	37.86% (162781/429963)
Region Coverage	32.28% (124158/384595)
Branch Coverage	33.68% (54375/161445)

[hello-stephen]

BE Regression && UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 50.00% (9/18) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category	Coverage
Function Coverage	71.31% (23867/33471)
Line Coverage	57.73% (248429/430312)
Region Coverage	52.88% (206156/389861)
Branch Coverage	54.62% (88724/162436)

[yiguolei]

In this case, should print stack here, we should know where the exception happens.

[BiteTheDDDDt]

run buildall

[BiteTheDDDDt]

run buildall

[HappenLee]

LGTM

[github-actions]

PR approved by at least one committer and no changes requested.

[github-actions]

PR approved by anyone and no changes requested.

[BiteTheDDDDt]

run buildall