[SPARK-34059][SQL][CORE] Use for/foreach rather than map to make sure execute it eagerly

[HyukjinKwon]

What changes were proposed in this pull request?

This PR is basically a followup of #14332.
Calling map alone might leave it not executed due to lazy evaluation, e.g.)

scala> val foo = Seq(1,2,3)
foo: Seq[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)

scala> foo.map(println)
1
2
3
res0: Seq[Unit] = List((), (), ())

scala> foo.view.map(println)
res1: scala.collection.SeqView[Unit,Seq[_]] = SeqViewM(...)

scala> foo.view.foreach(println)
1
2
3

We should better use foreach to make sure it's executed where the output is unused or Unit.

Why are the changes needed?

To prevent the potential issues by not executing map.

Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?

No, the current codes look not causing any problem for now.

How was this patch tested?

I found these item by running IntelliJ inspection, double checked one by one, and fixed them. These should be all instances across the codebase ideally.

[HyukjinKwon]

cc @srowen FYI

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/38475/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status success
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/38475/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test starting
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/38479/

[SparkQA]

Kubernetes integration test status failure
URL: https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder-K8s/38479/

[SparkQA]

Test build #133890 has finished for PR 31110 at commit 74bc183.

• This patch passes all tests.
• This patch merges cleanly.
• This patch adds no public classes.

[viirya]

Thanks! Merging to master.

[HyukjinKwon]

Thanks @srowen and @viirya!

[mridulm]

Thanks for fixing this @HyukjinKwon ! Surprised these did not cause problems earlier.
Do we want to backport this to older branches as well ?

[HyukjinKwon]

Sure I'll prepare backport

[srowen]

It will definitely have the same effect if the collection is not lazy, so I doubt it currently is the cause of a bug. But yeah it'd be fine to backport in case there is any chance the collection that something returns suddenly gets lazy.