Secret Scanning Alerts migration - update to new location types

[theztefan]

PR implements #1305

• Did you write/update appropriate tests
• Release notes updated (if appropriate)
• Appropriate logging output
• Issue linked
• Docs updated (or issue created)
• New package licenses are added to ThirdPartyNotices.txt (if applicable)

Summary of code changes

• Updated related models src/Octoshift/Models/GithubSecretScanningAlert.cs
  • GithubSecretScanningAlert to include resolution comment
  • GithubSecretScanningAlertLocation to include types of location and related info
• Updated src/Octoshift/Services/GithubApi.cs to work with new model definition
  • to populate new fields objects when fetching alerts
  • to include resolution_comment when updating alert
• Refactored src/Octoshift/Services/SecretScanningAlertService.cs in regards to matching the locations of alerts criteria to include the new location types; and the algorithm for matching alerts between source and target repositories.
  Instead of iterating thru all alerts in a list to match an alert from source and target we now use dictionary for the lookup. We use this lookup to match all locations on all alerts; The criteria for matching alerts follows the similar structure as before but included couple of guards/pre-flight checks to further speed up the matching process. Performance optimization has benefits when migrating repositories with big number of alerts.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Results

865 tests   865 ✅  20s ⏱️
  1 suites    0 💤
  1 files      0 ❌

Results for commit eced510.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[ArinGhazarian]

While I am not super familiar with secret scanning, the code changes looks good my main concern is there is a bit of a logic changes do we have enough unit test coverage?

[github-actions]

Package	Line Rate	Branch Rate	Complexity	Health
gei	81%	72%	592	✔
ado2gh	84%	78%	631	✔
Octoshift	87%	74%	1402	✔
bbs2gh	82%	76%	669	✔
Summary	84% (7189 / 8533)	75% (1671 / 2230)	3294	✔

[theztefan]

Thanks for reviewing and for your suggestions @ArinGhazarian! I've addressed the points made and and included another four tests to cover few more cases for the matching algorithms and couple of 'edge' cases for repos with no secret scanning alerts.
This set cover the use-cases I've encountered in practice plus some more. It didn't really change the code coverage but looking at other PRs the results we got seem to be rather standard. Let me know!