[Enhancement] Reject cross-mode ALTER for materialized view refresh_mode

[Youngwb]

Why I'm doing:

What I'm doing:

ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW SET refresh_mode is restricted to no-op (same mode). Switching between INCREMENTAL and PCT is not supported; the recovery path for changing refresh_mode is drop-and-recreate.

Production:

• AlterMVJobExecutor.alterMVRefreshMode: replace the IVMAnalyzer re-validation block with a single early gate. If the original mode differs from the target mode, throw with a clear error pointing at drop-and-recreate. Same-mode ALTERs still go through the applier so the persisted property and the in-memory currentRefreshMode stay in sync (relied on by the helper-driven test path).
• The IVMAnalyzer.rewrite call here re-walked the MV's defining query to recompute IVM eligibility on every ALTER refresh_mode. Since same-mode ALTER is the only allowed transition under the new gate, that re-validation is no longer reachable; remove it (and the now unused import) to keep the method narrow and avoid a known AST mutation leak in the analyzer's catch-and-fallback path.

Tests:

• testChangeMVRefreshMode1 (AUTO MV): AUTO -> INCREMENTAL now expects rejection (cross-mode). The companion AUTO -> AUTO leg still expects rejection at the PropertyAnalyzer layer (PR2). Mode stays AUTO throughout.
• testChangeMVRefreshMode3 (INCREMENTAL MV): adds a third leg asserting INCREMENTAL -> PCT is rejected, the gap PR6 was created to close.
• testChangeMVRefreshMode2/6/7 already expect failure for their cross-mode legs and continue to pass under the simpler rule.

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This pr needs auto generate documentation
• This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

• I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
  • 4.1
  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.4

[CelerData-Reviewer]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish!

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[github-actions]

[Java-Extensions Incremental Coverage Report]

✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

[github-actions]

[FE Incremental Coverage Report]

✅ pass : 6 / 6 (100.00%)

file detail

	path	covered_line	new_line	coverage	not_covered_line_detail
🔵	com/starrocks/alter/AlterMVJobExecutor.java	6	6	100.00%	[]

[github-actions]

[BE Incremental Coverage Report]

✅ pass : 0 / 0 (0%)

[github-actions]

@Mergifyio backport branch-4.1

[mergify]

backport branch-4.1

✅ Backports have been created

Details

• #72392 [Enhancement] Reject cross-mode ALTER for materialized view refresh_mode (backport #72380) has been created for branch branch-4.1