Improve performance of listTemplates API

[Pearl1594]

Description

This PR Adds a fast-path for listTemplates Phase 1 that bypasses template_view,
behind a runtime config flag (default off).

Why

The captured incident query against template_view runs 7,000+ seconds and
drains the DB pool. View materializes ~71k rows for ~4.7k templates due to
LEFT-JOIN row multiplication, OR-join on data_center, and predicates on a
computed column. Phase 1 only needs 6 of the 13 tables.

What changed

• BypassTemplateView ConfigKey (template.list.bypass.view, default false,
  Global, runtime-toggleable).
• TemplateListFilter POJO + canBypass() predicate.
• TemplateJoinDao.findDistinctTempZonePairs(filter) — hand-tuned SQL over
  vm_template + account + template_store_ref + image_store + template_zone_ref
  • data_center; OR-join replaced with COALESCE.
• QueryManagerImpl builds the filter and dispatches to bypass when flag is
  on AND canBypass() is true. Otherwise falls through to existing path.

Coverage

Bypass handles: id, name, keyword, hypervisor, format, type,
public, featured, bootable, parenttemplateid, accountType,
accountIdIN, zoneid, templateState, removed, onlyReady, pagination,
templatefilter ∈ {self/selfexecutable non-domain-admin, executable,
all admin}.

Falls back to view path: tags, templatefilter ∈ {featured, community,
sharedexecutable, shared, all non-admin, self/selfexecutable for
DOMAIN_ADMIN/RESOURCE_DOMAIN_ADMIN}.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 3.69%. Comparing base (a951ac6) to head (21955d9).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (a951ac6) and HEAD (21955d9). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (a951ac6)	HEAD (21955d9)
unittests	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.22   #13566       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     17.67%    3.69%   -13.98%     
=============================================
  Files          5923      448     -5475     
  Lines        533349    38117   -495232     
  Branches      65248     7067    -58181     
=============================================
- Hits          94253     1409    -92844     
+ Misses       428437    36521   -391916     
+ Partials      10659      187    -10472     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.69% <ø> (ø)
unittests	?

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.