Emit per-participant fieldsJoin and orderBy; replace SelectJoinStep mutation in interface fetchers

TypeFetcherGenerator.buildQueryTableInterfaceFieldFetcher and buildTableInterfaceFieldFetcher emit dynamic jOOQ queries by declaring a SelectJoinStep<Record> step local and reassigning it inside if (alias != null) blocks (buildCrossTableJoinChain, see TypeFetcherGenerator.java:686-700 and TypeFetcherGenerator.java:759-770). That is not the idiomatic jOOQ pattern for dynamic joins; jOOQ’s documented form folds the conditional join into a single fluent expression via DSL.noTable() / DSL.noCondition(), which jOOQ erases at render time. The step-mutation form also centralises join construction in QueryFetchers, breaking symmetry with the existing per-type-class $fields(…​) helper (which already gates SELECT entries by selection set on the participant type).

Refactor the emitter so each participant type class (e.g. FilmContent, ShortContent) hosts a sibling helper alongside $fields (working name $fieldsJoin(selectionSet, sourceTable, env)) that takes the current from-clause, applies its own conditional cross-table joins, and returns the joined Table<?>. The interface fetcher then composes participants by nesting the calls and degenerates to a single fluent expression: dsl.select(new ArrayList<>(fields)).from(ShortContent.$fieldsJoin(FilmContent.$fieldsJoin(content, env), env)).where(condition).orderBy(…​).fetch(). Order-by gets the same treatment via a static $orderBy(table) (likely on the interface type or interface-fetcher’s own type class, depending on where order-by inputs naturally live).

Plan body pending. Open questions for Spec: (1) where exactly does $orderBy live ; on the interface type, on the parent type, or as a QueryFetchers-local static ; given current order-by inputs come from qtif.orderBy() and aren’t participant-scoped; (2) does the field set stay produced by $fields per participant (current shape) or get folded into $fieldsJoin so each participant declares its alias and its SELECT contribution in one place; (3) what does $fieldsJoin return for a participant with zero cross-table fields ; pass-through sourceTable, or skip the call entirely at emit time; (4) do we want this same shape for non-interface table-field fetchers (R7’s decomposition territory) or scope strictly to the interface-fetcher pair to keep the refactor bounded.