feat!: Refactor dependabot secrets to pass request by value

[stevehipwell]

BREAKING CHANGE: DependabotService methods involving secrets have new params and return values.

This PR updates the Dependabot secret update/create functions to use a value parameter (see #3644). This aligns Dependabot secrets with the changes made to actions secrets (#4335) & actions variables (#4346). It also aligns the names of the actions secret and variable request types.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.51%. Comparing base (d870966) to head (3b2f53f).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #4348   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.51%   97.51%           
=======================================
  Files         193      193           
  Lines       19519    19526    +7     
=======================================
+ Hits        19033    19040    +7     
  Misses        269      269           
  Partials      217      217           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis rebased this PR to make it mergeable as it hadn't been reviewed yet.

[gmlewis]

Thank you, @stevehipwell!
LGTM.
Awaiting second LGTM+Approval from any other contributor to this repo before merging.

cc: @alexandear - @Not-Dhananjay-Mishra

[gmlewis]

@stevehipwell - please resolve the conflicts so that we may proceed with this PR.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis that should be good now.

[stevehipwell]

@gmlewis shouldn't this have been merged before the v89 release was cut given that it was part of a series of changes? RE the TF provider request, speaking as a maintainer there was no rush for the PR where a release was requested. I'd have added this as a comment if I'd thought that I'd block this PR.

[gmlewis]

@gmlewis shouldn't this have been merged before the v89 release was cut given that it was part of a series of changes? RE the TF provider request, speaking as a maintainer there was no rush for the PR where a release was requested. I'd have added this as a comment if I'd thought that I'd block this PR.

I guess I didn't fully realize the situation over at terraform.

It had been over a month since the last release and I was being asked to cut one, so I did.

I'm sorry about that, @stevehipwell.

We can cut a new one when this series of PRs is completed.

[gmlewis]

@stevehipwell - if you want these PRs moved along faster, feel free to bring in coworkers or other terraform maintainers to move these along.

[stevehipwell]

@stevehipwell - if you want these PRs moved along faster, feel free to bring in coworkers or other terraform maintainers to move these along.

@gmlewis I wish it was that easy. I'll see if I can persuade someone from the TF side to come and help.