[ISSUE #4070] bugfix : Returning min queue offset when timestamp is larger than queue-unit max timestamp

[humkum]

What is the purpose of the change

#4070

Brief changelog

There's no need to binary search offset if the target timestamp is larger than the batchConsumeQueue's max timestamp. So if target timestamp is larger than max timestamp, return max offset directly.

Verifying this change

• before:
  We will get "-1" when we getOffsetInQueueByTime if the target timestamp is larger than the max queue unit timestamp.
  
  The result as follows:
  

• after :
  After fix that:
  

Follow this checklist to help us incorporate your contribution quickly and easily. Notice, it would be helpful if you could finish the following 5 checklist(the last one is not necessary)before request the community to review your PR.

• Make sure there is a Github issue filed for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not require a Github issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without pulling in other changes - one PR resolves one issue.
• Format the pull request title like [ISSUE #123] Fix UnknownException when host config not exist. Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Write necessary unit-test(over 80% coverage) to verify your logic correction, more mock a little better when cross module dependency exist. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add integration-test in test module.
• Run mvn -B clean apache-rat:check findbugs:findbugs checkstyle:checkstyle to make sure basic checks pass. Run mvn clean install -DskipITs to make sure unit-test pass. Run mvn clean test-compile failsafe:integration-test to make sure integration-test pass.
• If this contribution is large, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #4071 (5590ea2) into 5.0.0-beta (52482d4) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             5.0.0-beta    #4071      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         43.09%   43.12%   +0.02%     
- Complexity         6014     6021       +7     
================================================
  Files               795      795              
  Lines             56825    56828       +3     
  Branches           7780     7781       +1     
================================================
+ Hits              24491    24509      +18     
+ Misses            29142    29124      -18     
- Partials           3192     3195       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...apache/rocketmq/store/queue/BatchConsumeQueue.java	69.50% <100.00%> (-0.65%)	⬇️
...ava/org/apache/rocketmq/test/util/VerifyUtils.java	46.26% <0.00%> (-2.99%)	⬇️
...org/apache/rocketmq/common/stats/StatsItemSet.java	41.79% <0.00%> (-1.50%)	⬇️
...ava/org/apache/rocketmq/filter/util/BitsArray.java	59.82% <0.00%> (ø)
...a/org/apache/rocketmq/store/StoreStatsService.java	48.61% <0.00%> (ø)
...ent/impl/consumer/DefaultLitePullConsumerImpl.java	67.92% <0.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
.../apache/rocketmq/logging/inner/LoggingBuilder.java	64.71% <0.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
...rocketmq/broker/processor/PopMessageProcessor.java	39.64% <0.00%> (+0.53%)	⬆️
...cketmq/broker/schedule/ScheduleMessageService.java	57.17% <0.00%> (+1.17%)	⬆️
... and 2 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 52482d4...5590ea2. Read the comment docs.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 47.258% when pulling 5590ea2 on humkum:batch-bugfix into 52482d4 on apache:5.0.0-beta.

[humkum]

@lizhiboo Hi, would you please check if this pr could be merged?

[humkum]

@lizhiboo @Git-Yang @panzhi33 ping~