Parquet: Clean up Parquet generic and internal readers

[rdblue]

This is a refactor that cleans up a few issues I noticed while reviewing #11904 and while working on Parquet variant readers.

• Updates INT and UINT handling to reject unsupported unsigned types (like UINT64)
• Adds more factory methods to ParquetValueReaders to keep implementations private
• Removes unused types argument from ParquetValueReader.StructReader subclasses. Some accessible uses had to be left, but most are removed. This allowed removing types from the reader builders as well.
• Removes unnecessary TimeUnit param from factory methods added in Parquet: Add readers and writers for the internal object model #11904
• Removes unnecessary implementations of setPageSource
• Adds imports for LogicalTypeAnnotation classes to cut down on multi-line method signatures

Changes are grouped into separate commits for easier review.

[amogh-jahagirdar]

Overall this is great, thanks for splitting into multiple commits, that made it easy to review. We'll need to update revAPI with the new ParquetValueReader.createStructReader interface which doesn't take in explicit types

[amogh-jahagirdar]

RevAPI is failing due to the new abstract method that implementations will need to implement (which I understand the rationale, the previous types argument were not used). I think we'll need to add the breaking change to revAPI

./gradlew :iceberg-parquet:revapiAcceptBreak --justification "Implementations of ParquetValueReader.createStructReader should not have to pass in explicit types" \
          --code "java.method.abstractMethodAdded" \
          --new "method org.apache.iceberg.parquet.ParquetValueReader<T> org.apache.iceberg.data.parquet.BaseParquetReaders<T>::createStructReader(java.util.List<org.apache.iceberg.parquet.ParquetValueReader<?>>, org.apache.iceberg.types.Types.StructType)"

[ajantha-bhat]

Thanks for cleaning this part of the code. I can work on moving parquet to core (already had a PR long back) after this to avoid conflicts for this PR.

[amogh-jahagirdar]

Thanks @rdblue and @ajantha-bhat for reviewing!

[ajantha-bhat]

We wanted to throw the exception when it is signed right?

Now it throws when it is unsigned. check should be inverted?

[ajantha-bhat]

oh, got it. Based on the error message, we should not read unsigned. So, previous check was wrong!

While fixing nits, we actually fixed the check.

[ajantha-bhat]

I think we have lot of gaps in test coverage for parquet readers like milli-time and timestamp reading, int96 reading, all kinds of signed, unsigned reads. I will create a ticket to follow this up.