Add a test to verify we respect the overall query timeout

[GuptaManan100]

Description

As pointed out in #16624, we weren't respecting overall query timeout. An attempt to fix it was made in #16619. An alternate change in #16735 has already fixed the issue. This PR adds a test to our test suite to check that is indeed the case.

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Bug Report: Query timeout applies only on Route and not on the entire query execution #16624

Checklist

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

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 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]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.93%. Comparing base (8816a2d) to head (6ba188e).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #16800      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.94%   68.93%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1566     1566              
  Lines      201983   201983              
==========================================
- Hits       139252   139229      -23     
- Misses      62731    62754      +23     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[frouioui]

Since we changed our downgrade tests, I don't think we need to include the skip if binary is below version command.

[GuptaManan100]

We would still need this. For upgrade tests running in a PR against release-20.0, we would end up using the code in main (upgrade target) to run the tests with both vtgate N+1, vttablet N and vtgate N, vttablet N+1. For the latter case we don't want to run this test. So, we need this skip line.