Add urn support for aspect pathway

[jphui]

Summary

#590 introduced a bug where an Urn-derived filtering is queried -- ex. urn/platform -- it would incorrectly assume that the basis model was an Aspect. In doing so, it would try and access the "column annotation" and result in this error:

ResponseOption_STATS\nresponse_options: ResponseOption_RAW_PATH\n,\n\nError message:\nMissingAnnotationException: Aspect com.linkedin.common.urn.Urn should be annotated with @gma.aspect.column.name.,\n\nRoot cause:\ncom.linkedin.metadata.dao.exception.MissingAnnotationException: Aspect com.linkedin.common.urn.Urn should be annotated with @gma.aspect.column.name.\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLSchemaUtils.getColumnNameFromAnnotation(SQLSchemaUtils.java:308)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLSchemaUtils.getColumnName(SQLSchemaUtils.java:278)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLSchemaUtils.getAspectColumnName(SQLSchemaUtils.java:133)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLStatementUtils.parseLocalRelationshipField(SQLStatementUtils.java:684)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLStatementUtils.buildSQLQueryFromLocalRelationshipCriterion(SQLStatementUtils.java:537)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLStatementUtils.buildSQLQueryFromLogicalExpression(SQLStatementUtils.java:507)\n\tat com.linkedin.metadata.dao.utils.SQLStatementUtils.lambda$buildSQLQueryFromLogicalExpression$1(SQLStatementUtils.java:527)\n\tat 

This is not truly a bug but a very odd edge case where Urn-derived paths are intentionally queried as AspectField criterions (see link).

This PR addresses this issue by effectively reverting to the old logic pathway for determining the column name.

Testing Done

added unit testing, need to push to test e2e

Checklist

• The PR conforms to DataHub's Contributing Guideline (particularly Commit Message Format)
• Links to related issues (if applicable)
• Docs related to the changes have been added/updated (if applicable)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 65.15%. Comparing base (4d25c88) to head (7e405b6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #596      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     65.13%   65.15%   +0.02%     
- Complexity     1690     1692       +2     
============================================
  Files           141      141              
  Lines          6666     6670       +4     
  Branches        809      809              
============================================
+ Hits           4342     4346       +4     
  Misses         1973     1973              
  Partials        351      351              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jsdonn]

ty for the quick fix!