[UT] get identifier field ids from equality delete file for adaptation (backport #45570)

[mergify]

Why I'm doing:

iceberg equality delete file schema with parquet is from identifier_field_ids of iceberg . currently, identifier_ids obtained from iceberg metadata file of json. but if user create table by spark engine, it won't record the identifier in the metadata file. so if the iceberg table metadata doesn't identifier_filed_ids, we need to get it from the equality delete file.

What I'm doing:

Fixes #issue
#44753

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

• I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
  • 3.3
  • 3.2
  • 3.1
  • 3.0
  • 2.5

---

This is an automatic backport of pull request #45570 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). ## Why I'm doing:

iceberg equality delete file schema with parquet is from identifier_field_ids of iceberg . currently, identifier_ids obtained from iceberg metadata file of json. but if user create table by spark engine, it won't record the identifier in the metadata file. so if the iceberg table metadata doesn't identifier_filed_ids, we need to get it from the equality delete file.

What I'm doing:

Fixes #issue
#44753

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

[mergify]

Cherry-pick of a9d8611 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.2/pr-45570
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.2'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit a9d8611c4f.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/planner/IcebergScanNode.java

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/catalog/IcebergTable.java

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[mergify]

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr