Fix semi-sync monitor bug of expecting incorrect number of fields

[GuptaManan100]

Description

This PR fixes the bug described in #17938. The problem of expecting incorrect number of fields has been fixed. There is an e2e test that would have caught this bug when the semi-sync monitor was introduced in #17763, but the test doesn't run on CI and I didn't run it locally after addressing the review comments as part of which I changed the query that the semi-sync monitor was running.

This time I have ensured that the e2e test is now working as expected after the fix.

Related Issue(s)

• Fixes Bug Report: SemiSyncMonitor fails with an unexpected rows error #17938

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 67.54%. Comparing base (74d9949) to head (43b2cf5).
Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17939      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.56%   67.54%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files        1597     1597              
  Lines      259775   259782       +7     
==========================================
- Hits       175509   175471      -38     
- Misses      84266    84311      +45     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 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.