#1651: push and commit status.json files to ide-urls-status after running the URL update workflow

[laert-ll]

This PR fixes #1651

Continuation of PR#2003

Implemented changes:

• Moved status.json handling out of the cli URL model into the url-updater module: StatusJson, UrlStatus and UrlStatusState are relocated, and the old AbstractUrlFile-based UrlStatusFile is replaced by a lightweight Path-based wrapper.
• The status.json path is now derived from the version folder instead of maintaining a parallel UrlRepository tree; the status repository is passed around as a plain Path.
• UpdateManager / UpdateInitiator accept the separate ide-urls-status repository, and the update-urls workflow checks it out and pushes to it.

---

Checklist for this PR

Make sure everything is checked before merging this PR. For further info please also see
our DoD.

• When running mvn clean test locally all tests pass and build is successful
• PR title is of the form #«issue-id»: «brief summary» (e.g. #921: fixed setup.bat). If no issue ID exists, title only.
• PR top-level comment summarizes what has been done and contains link to addressed issue(s)
• PR and issue(s) have suitable labels
• Issue is set to In Progress and assigned to you or there is no issue (might happen for very small PRs)
• You followed all coding conventions
• You have added the issue implemented by your PR in CHANGELOG.adoc unless issue is labeled
  with internal

[coveralls]

Coverage Report for CI Build 32352409678

Coverage increased (+0.7%) to 73.644%

Details

• Coverage increased (+0.7%) from the base build.
• Patch coverage: No coverable lines changed in this PR.
• 97 coverage regressions across 7 files.

Uncovered Changes

No uncovered changes found.

Coverage Regressions

97 previously-covered lines in 7 files lost coverage.

File	Lines Losing Coverage	Coverage
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/updater/AbstractUrlUpdater.java	38	82.92%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/updater/UpdateManager.java	26	38.82%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/model/folder/UrlVersion.java	14	68.66%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/UpdateInitiator.java	13	0.0%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/model/folder/UrlRepository.java	3	50.0%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/json/JsonMapping.java	2	90.91%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/model/folder/AbstractUrlFolder.java	1	43.53%

---

Coverage Stats

Relevant Lines:	17604
Covered Lines:	13556
Line Coverage:	77.01%
Relevant Branches:	7783
Covered Branches:	5140
Branch Coverage:	66.04%
Branches in Coverage %:	Yes
Coverage Strength:	3.27 hits per line

---

💛 - Coveralls

[maybeec]

Thanks for picking this back up from #2003 👍 This is a clean split: status.json handling moves out of the cli URL model into url-updater, the UrlStatusFile/StatusJson/UrlStatus/UrlStatusState classes move with it, and the GHA workflow now checks out, updates and pushes both ide-urls and the new ide-urls-status repo. Nice that the old UpdateManager(Path, UrlFinalReport, Instant) constructor was kept and just delegates to the new one — BuildSecurityJsonFiles in the security module still compiles against it unchanged, which is exactly the right way to avoid a breaking signature change.

Against issue #1651's requirements: workflow checks out the new repo ✅, UrlUpdaters write status files into the new repo's mirrored folder structure ✅, workflow commits/pushes both repos ✅. One item from the issue doesn't look addressed here: "We need a new access token to also include write access to the new repo" — see the inline comment on the workflow file.

A few should-fix points below, nothing blocking. Also two small housekeeping notes: the PR is currently shown as behind main by GitHub, so please rebase/update before merging; and the PR title has a small typo ("worklfow" → "workflow").

[hohwille]

@laert-ll thank you for taking over this story. You perfectly catched up the requirements from story and review remarks to bring this to the finishing line. 👍
My remarks are all about managing and saving the new status.json files and the main question I have is, whether after merging the current state, it could happen that we modify a status file in memory but forget to write it to disk what would be a bug causing potential problems. If this is not the case and we finally want to get this done, we can also create a cleanup ticket and merge this PR as is and do the cleanup later when we have time for it.
If you think you can address the review comments quickly and prefer to include them into this PR that is also fine even in case there is no bug.