fix: reject groups accumulator for bit_xor(DISTINCT)

[jackylee-ch]

Which issue does this PR close?

• N/A

Rationale for this change

bit_xor(DISTINCT c) with GROUP BY fails with column types must match schema types, expected List(Int16) but found Int16: groups_accumulator_supported ignored is_distinct, so the plan got the non-distinct groups accumulator while state_fields declared the List state.

What changes are included in this PR?

groups_accumulator_supported now returns false only for bit_xor(DISTINCT), matching accumulator and state_fields. bit_and and bit_or are idempotent, so they keep the vectorized path.

What is the testing strategy for this PR?

Three aggregate.slt queries: the two shapes SingleDistinctToGroupBy does not rewrite (a non-distinct aggregate alongside, a FILTER) fail on main; a bit_and/bit_or DISTINCT row pins the narrower predicate.

Are there any user-facing changes?

bit_xor(DISTINCT) with GROUP BY now works. No API change.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 81.88%. Comparing base (9082d6b) to head (92ce829).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #24989      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.88%   81.88%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1133     1133              
  Lines      424522   424522              
  Branches   424522   424522              
==========================================
- Hits       347623   347611      -12     
- Misses      56285    56296      +11     
- Partials    20614    20615       +1     

☔ 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.

[jayzhan211]

Thanks @jackylee-ch 👍🏻

Wait, I found an issue

[jayzhan211]

Should we limit operator to XOR only, since AND and OR are idempotent so DISTINCT does not change their result and they keep the vectorized path.

Also, do we need to handle null case? This could be a follow-up issue

Suggested change

	!args.is_distinct
	!(args.is_distinct && self.operation == BitwiseOperationType::Xor)

[jayzhan211]

Thanks @jackylee-ch 👍🏻