release-22.1: kvserver/reports: replication_constraint_stats use voter constraints

[aliher1911]

Backport 1/1 commits from #84727.

/cc @cockroachdb/release

---

Previously replication_constraint_stats were using zone constraints regardless
of the fact that num_voters and a separate voter constraints were provided.
This was causing report to have violations because range had less voters than
replicas, but still were trying to check if we have as many voters as
full replica constraints.
This was causing ambiguity in reports as there were no violation and no way
to figure out which constraint is being violated.
This patch changes report to use voter constraints if they are provided or
use voters and non voters if voter count is configured lower than replica
count, but voter constraints are not provided.

Release note (bug fix): table system.replication_constraint_stats is not
showing erroneous voter contraint violations when num_voters is configured.

Release justification: bugfix to an issue which also needs backporting.

Fixes #84695

[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 

[andreimatei]

Reviewable status: complete! 1 of 0 LGTMs obtained (waiting on @aliher1911)

[aliher1911]

@andreimatei can you "approve" the review pls as merge is blocked until it is properly marked