feat: adds array_add function

[SubhamSinghal]

Which issue does this PR close?

• Part of #21536 (array_add — first PR in the vector math series).

Rationale for this change

What changes are included in this PR?

Are these changes tested?

Yes, via SLT only (array_add.slt). Coverage:

• Happy paths: basic, negative components, single-element, empty, multi-row.
• NULL propagation: whole-row NULL on each side / both sides; element-level NULL on each side / both sides at same
  and different positions.
• Type / variant: integer literals, mixed int+float, LargeList×LargeList, mixed List+LargeList,
  FixedSizeList → List coercion, Float32 leaf, Int64 leaf.
• Decimal handling: Decimal128 / Decimal256 rejected at planning; explicit cast to DOUBLE opt-in works.
• Error paths: per-row length mismatch (exec), unsupported non-list input (plan), non-numeric leaf (plan), boolean
  leaf (plan), nested list (plan), wrong arg count.
• Aliases: list_add single-row + multi-row.
• Composition: array_add(array_add(...), ...) chained — single-row, with element NULLs propagating across both
  layers, and multi-row with row-level NULL.

Are there any user-facing changes?

Yes — two new functions:

• array_add(array1, array2) → List<Float64> / LargeList<Float64>
• list_add(...) alias

Both exposed via expr_fn and registered in all_default_nested_functions(). Documented inline via #[user_doc]
(description, syntax, SQL example, argument descriptions).

No breaking API changes.

[crm26]

Heads up — the check configs.md and ***_functions.md is up-to-date job is red because docs/source/user-guide/sql/scalar_functions.md needs to be regenerated for the new array_add entry from your #[user_doc] macro.

One-command fix:

./dev/update_function_docs.sh
git add docs/source/user-guide/sql/scalar_functions.md

Then amend or new-commit + push.

[Jefffrey]

The logic in here seems to differ from what we usually have, e.g.

datafusion/datafusion/functions-nested/src/cosine_distance.rs

Lines 100 to 139 in ba240b2

	fncoerce_types(&self,arg_types:&[DataType]) -> Result<Vec<DataType>>{
	let[_, _] = take_function_args(self.name(), arg_types)?;
	let coercion = Some(&ListCoercion::FixedSizedListToList);
	for arg_type in arg_types {
	if !matches!(arg_type,Null | List(_) | LargeList(_) | FixedSizeList(..)){
	returnplan_err!("{} does not support type {arg_type}",self.name());
	}
	}
	// If any input is `LargeList`, both sides must be widened to `LargeList`
	// so the runtime dispatch in `cosine_distance_inner` sees a homogeneous
	// pair. Follows the pattern in `ArrayConcat::coerce_types`.
	let any_large_list = arg_types.iter().any(|t| matches!(t,LargeList(_)));
	let coerced = arg_types
	.iter()
	.map(|arg_type| {
	ifmatches!(arg_type,Null){
	let field = Arc::new(Field::new_list_field(DataType::Float64,true));
	returnif any_large_list {
	LargeList(field)
	}else{
	List(field)
	};
	}
	let coerced = coerced_type_with_base_type_only(
	arg_type,
	&DataType::Float64,
	coercion,
	);
	match coerced {
	List(field)if any_large_list => LargeList(field),
	other => other,
	}
	})
	.collect();
	Ok(coerced)
	}

Is there a reason for this?

[SubhamSinghal]

@Jefffrey I have added more checks like

1. List of List is handled upfront. List<List> throws error as non numeric
2. Decimal128 and Decimal256 types throws error as downcasting it would loose precision.
3. throws error if element type is non-numeric to avoid automatic typecasting of boolean or string type to numeric.

Let me know if I should get rid of these checks.

[Jefffrey]

cc @crm26

We should try to ensure these array math functions are consistent with each other on the signature they accept

[SubhamSinghal]

@Jefffrey can we make this a util function?

[Jefffrey]

That could be useful to keep them aligned, until we have better support in the signature API for these types of behaviour

[SubhamSinghal]

@Jefffrey Create utility function coerce_array_math_arg_types with same implementation as other existing functions. We can add more checks to common function if needed.

[SubhamSinghal]

@Jefffrey Resolved merge conflict.