Add support to update secondary and primary storage URLs

[Pearl1594]

Description

This PR fixes: #11742

Adds support to update the URL of primary and secondary stores. However, the support is limited to API and not extended to the UI as this is an operation that if performed without caution can lead to issues - data loss.

Secondary store:
The store needs to be in read-only mode before attempting to change the url.
Secondary storage VM needs to be recreated to remount the new store

Primary store:
The primary store needs to be in Maintenance mode to proceed with updating the URL
The update of URL was previously purely cosmetic / informational ie updated in the database - details table. This continues to be true for storage pools other than nfs and gluster
For NFS and Gluster, if the URL is changed, it propagates it to the connected hosts and attempts to remove the old store and add the new one
In case , no hosts are found, it only changes the URL in the DB and this would require a MS restart to propagate to the host.

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

• Major
• Minor

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[Pearl1594]

@DaanHoogland do you think we need to expose updating this via UI or leave this as a API only field? I feel it could be a bit of a dangerous operation should it be used incorrectly.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 18.29268% with 67 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 18.09%. Comparing base (522283b) to head (eaffcd7).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ain/java/com/cloud/storage/StorageManagerImpl.java	0.00%	55 Missing ⚠️
.../hypervisor/kvm/storage/LibvirtStorageAdaptor.java	65.21%	3 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️
...api/command/admin/storage/UpdateImageStoreCmd.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...src/main/java/com/cloud/server/StatsCollector.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #13193      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     18.08%   18.09%   +0.01%     
- Complexity    16718    16742      +24     
============================================
  Files          6037     6037              
  Lines        542580   542818     +238     
  Branches      66427    66500      +73     
============================================
+ Hits          98136    98241     +105     
- Misses       433417   433547     +130     
- Partials      11027    11030       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.51% <ø> (ø)
unittests	19.26% <18.29%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[DaanHoogland]

@DaanHoogland do you think we need to expose updating this via UI or leave this as a API only field? I feel it could be a bit of a dangerous operation should it be used incorrectly.

I agree, let limit to API

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
19.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 40%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud