483: support multiple editions in update

[slskiba]

Closes #483

• UrlUpdater base classes now support multiple editions
• The default implementation behaves as before: a single edition named after the tool
• Intellij therefore can be refactored, not having to implement its own update method anymore

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10628491050

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 41 unchanged lines in 3 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.03%) to 64.838%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/updater/JsonUrlUpdater.java	5	81.48%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/tool/intellij/IntellijUrlUpdater.java	7	75.61%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/url/updater/AbstractUrlUpdater.java	29	82.96%

Totals
Change from base Build 10610910357:	0.03%
Covered Lines:	5730
Relevant Lines:	8528

---

💛 - Coveralls

[hohwille]

@slskiba thanks for your PR. You nicely added the ability to pass the edition as parameter instead of internally retrieving it from the getter. The way you add multiple editions as List without the need to refactor all other UrlUpdaters is smart and well designed. 👍

The only little room for improvement that I can notice is that you are parsing the response as JSON for IntelliJ and Python multiple times only to get one item out of the JSON array. You could theoretically leave the getJsonObjectFromResponse without the edition and create a new parent container object for that and containing the editions. Then you could add a protected method getJsonEdition(J rootObject, String edition) to JsonUrlUpdater that gets the root JSON object and returns the actual edition JSON object from it for a given edition parameter. The you however, need 3 generic types: J, JE, JVI where JE is the JSON edition object. Other JSON UrlUpdaters would then declare J = JE. To avoid changes in other URL Updaters, you could extract AbstractJsonUrlUpdater that has these 3 generics while JsonUrlUpdater extends it and implement getJsonEdition to just return rootObject.
However, I do not see a problem with the current approach and we can also merge as is...