Fix: Errant GTID detection on the replicas when they set replication source

[GuptaManan100]

Description

This PR adds errant GTID detection logic in setReplicationSourceLocked call. The intent is that we want to prevent any replica that has an errant GTID from even joining the replication stream. This is because we want to prevent this replica from sending semi-sync ACKs, which can land us into some really annoying and hard to deal with situations.

To do the errant GTID detection, the tablets first query their own position and then ask the primary for its position. Then they compare the two to see if they have an errant GTID or not. If they do, they fail the RPC without setting the new source.

Related Issue(s)

• Part of an effort to address the issue https://github.com/vitessio/vitess/issues/16724

Checklist

• [x] "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• [x] If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• [x] Tests were added or are not required
• [x] Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• [x] Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot[bot]]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! :wave: Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• [ ] Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• [ ] Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• [ ] Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• [ ] Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• [ ] New features should be documented.
• [ ] There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• [ ] There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• [ ] Is this flag really necessary?
• [ ] Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• [ ] Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• [ ] If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• [ ] Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• [ ] Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• [ ] RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• [ ] If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• [ ] vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 43.28358% with 38 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 69.42%. Comparing base (766bc64) to head (e1e560c). Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/rpc_replication.go	0.00%	15 Missing :warning:
go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/tm_init.go	48.27%	15 Missing :warning:
go/vt/vttablet/tabletmanager/restore.go	0.00%	8 Missing :warning:

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #16833 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 69.43% 69.42% -0.01% ========================================== Files 1571 1571 Lines 203086 203232 +146 ========================================== + Hits 141013 141101 +88 - Misses 62073 62131 +58 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[GuptaManan100]

Thank you for the reviews! I've addressed all review comments and added the release notes changes as requested. I will merge the PR once the tests are green. ♥️