release-22.2: workload/tpcc: move tpcc error checks before length checks

[blathers-crl]

Backport 1/1 commits from #102081 on behalf of @DrewKimball.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

Some of the TPCC consistency checks ensure that the number of rows returned by two queries is the same. This is done by checking that if one of the iterators returns false, they both do. However, if one of the iterators encounters an error, it will return false even though there are still rows left. This could cause the consistency check to seem as if it failed with incorrect results:

Error: check failed: 3.3.2.4: at 1682088974198157583.0000000000: length of order.sum(o_ol_cnt) != order_line.count(*)

when really one of the iterators just encountered an error. This patch moves the error-checking before the length checking, so that the correct error message is returned.

Fixes #102004

Release note: None

---

Release justification: Test-only fix for a confusing user-facing error.

[blathers-crl]

Thanks for opening a backport.

Please check the backport criteria before merging:

• Patches should only be created for serious issues or test-only changes.
• Patches should not break backwards-compatibility.
• Patches should change as little code as possible.
• Patches should not change on-disk formats or node communication protocols.
• Patches should not add new functionality.
• Patches must not add, edit, or otherwise modify cluster versions; or add version gates.

If some of the basic criteria cannot be satisfied, ensure that the exceptional criteria are satisfied within.

• There is a high priority need for the functionality that cannot wait until the next release and is difficult to address in another way.
• The new functionality is additive-only and only runs for clusters which have specifically “opted in” to it (e.g. by a cluster setting).
• New code is protected by a conditional check that is trivial to verify and ensures that it only runs for opt-in clusters.
• The PM and TL on the team that owns the changed code have signed off that the change obeys the above rules.

Add a brief release justification to the body of your PR to justify this backport.

Some other things to consider:

• What did we do to ensure that a user that doesn’t know & care about this backport, has no idea that it happened?
• Will this work in a cluster of mixed patch versions? Did we test that?
• If a user upgrades a patch version, uses this feature, and then downgrades, what happens?

[cockroach-teamcity]

This change is 

[yuzefovich]

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! 0 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @DrewKimball, @michae2, and @srosenberg)