Allow parse to pass through already matched type.

[jdunkerley]

Pull Request Description

• Table.parse and Column.parse will allow the target type to be returned unchanged.
• Fix widget for Excel_Workbook.read_many.
• Fix ALIAS for DB_Table.sort.
• Fix Table.text_cleanse widget by adding a default value.
• Expose In_Any_Warn_On_Missing for read_many as wanted by user in review.

Checklist

Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:

• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Screenshots/screencasts have been attached, if there are any visual changes. For interactive or animated visual changes, a screencast is preferred.
• All code follows the
  Scala,
  Java,
  TypeScript,
  and
  Rust
  style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
• Unit tests have been written where possible.
• If meaningful changes were made to logic or tests affecting Enso Cloud integration in the libraries,
  or the Snowflake database integration, a run of the Extra Tests has been scheduled.
  • If applicable, it is suggested to paste a link to a successful run of the Extra Tests.

[jdunkerley]

Closes #11991

[GregoryTravis]

Is there a way to make sure the column was returned directly?

[radeusgd]

Perhaps we could do

c1 = t.at "X"
r1 = c1.parse ..Integer
Meta.is_same_object c1 r1 . should_be_true

[radeusgd]

I've just realised that this check is redundant to the check in Column.parse.

We could discard this change altogether and all should still work - because we will just call parse on all selected columns and for those of them that already fit the target type, they will be returned as-is and passed to set - set updating a column to the same column effectively does nothing.

I think it could be a worthwhile simplification to remove this custom logic from Table.parse and only rely on Column.parse ensuring the correct behaviour. That way the logic is only in 2 places (because of also DB_Column) instead of 4.

[radeusgd]

Looks good now.

I think we could further simplify a bit as the check inside of Table.parse seems redundant with Column.parse.