Various fixes related to path includes

[nnobelis]

This PR contains some of the change still required for #10347.

Please have a look at the individual commit messages for the details.

@tsteenbe With these changes, the includes are rendered in the WebApp report: when a result is excluded due to the presence of includes, all includes are rendered in the collapsible section under it, with the mention (includes).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 86.04651% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 57.47%. Comparing base (6dd73f5) to head (bfb62c7).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
model/src/main/kotlin/licenses/ResolvedLicense.kt	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
...main/kotlin/licenses/DefaultLicenseInfoProvider.kt	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main   #10762      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     57.38%   57.47%   +0.09%     
- Complexity     1673     1679       +6     
============================================
  Files           346      346              
  Lines         12759    12796      +37     
  Branches       1209     1212       +3     
============================================
+ Hits           7322     7355      +33     
- Misses         4972     4976       +4     
  Partials        465      465              

Flag	Coverage Δ
funTest-docker	71.15% <ø> (ø)
test-ubuntu-24.04	42.07% <86.04%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
test-windows-2025	42.05% <86.04%> (+0.17%)	⬆️

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.

[mnonnenmacher]

I think there is a problem here: pathIncludes.isEmpty() can mean two things:

• There are no path includes defined at all so this project is included.
• There are path includes but none match this project so it is excluded.

I wonder if for the case that no path includes are defined at all, Includes should return a default path include which matches ** to make the usage unambiguous.

[nnobelis]

I am not too sure about this.

I also experimented with null to reflect the tri-state, and is the end I went with a separated boolean isExcludedByPathIncludes in EvaluatedFinding.

Maybe we can discuss this in the Community meeting.