branch-4.0 [opt](nerieds) PhysicalOlapScan and PhysicalFileScan should print its id in plan #62509

[englefly]

What problem does this PR solve?

pick #62509
Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[englefly]

run buildall

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

[englefly]

run buildall

[englefly]

run buildall

[englefly]

/review

[github-actions]

I found one blocking issue in the updated regression test. The production toString() changes themselves look consistent with the stated goal of printing the relation id while preserving table information as a property, but the test change drops the actual row-count assertion that this suite is meant to protect.

Critical checkpoints:

• Correctness/regression coverage: blocking issue found; partitionRowCount no longer asserts the expected stats=4 row count.
• Compatibility/API surface: no new external API or persistence compatibility issue found in the GitHub PR diff.
• Tests: existing test was updated, but it is now too weak and should be tightened before merge.
• Existing review threads: none were present, so this is not a duplicate.
• User focus points: no additional user-provided review focus was supplied.

[englefly]

run cloud_p0

[englefly]

run nonConcurrent

dis