Supported IDL-based service naming for application-level discovery: Fixes #15365

[somiljain2006]

What is the purpose of the change?

This PR resolves service discovery failures in Dubbo IDL applications where the declared Protobuf package differs from the Java package. When explicitly enabled, Dubbo registers and discovers services using their original IDL interface name instead of the generated Java interface name. This maintains backward compatibility and aligns service discovery behavior with the IDL-based service definitions.

Fixes #15365

Checklist

• Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Write necessary unit tests to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add a sample in the dubbo samples project.
• Make sure GitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 26.19048% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 58.78%. Comparing base (47a141c) to head (bc2f834).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...in/java/org/apache/dubbo/config/ServiceConfig.java	0.00%	14 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
.../java/org/apache/dubbo/config/ReferenceConfig.java	23.07%	8 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ava/org/apache/dubbo/config/ServiceNameConfig.java	57.14%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.3   #15888      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     60.75%   58.78%   -1.98%     
+ Complexity    11703       15   -11688     
============================================
  Files          1938     1939       +1     
  Lines         88694    88730      +36     
  Branches      13387    13395       +8     
============================================
- Hits          53886    52159    -1727     
- Misses        29275    30909    +1634     
- Partials       5533     5662     +129     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21	?
integration-tests-java8	?
samples-tests-java21	?
samples-tests-java8	?
unit-tests-java11	59.03% <26.19%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java17	58.53% <26.19%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java21	58.51% <26.19%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java25	58.47% <26.19%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java8	59.02% <26.19%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.

[somiljain2006]

I made sure that the change is fully gated by configuration and should not affect the default behavior. I think CI is enabling IDL mode implicitly or exercising a different application-level discovery path.

[somiljain2006]

@zrlw @heliang666s Could you please review this and let me know if there are any adjustments I need to make?