chore: Switch from Spring 2.7 to 3.2

[rnd4you]

Pull Request

Description

Spring 2.7 has been replaced with 3.2.

Fixes #351

Type of change

• Code cleanup/refactoring - replace Spring version numbers and javax -> jakarta in several files
• Documentation update - README.md English changed

Testing

All previous tests that used to work with Spring 2.7 are operating well with Spring 3.2 as well.

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• My code meets the required code coverage for lines (90% and above)
• My code meets the required code coverage for branches (80% and above)
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (c511a34) 90.90% compared to head (8f16b66) 90.90%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main     #400   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     90.90%   90.90%           
  Complexity      486      486           
=========================================
  Files            47       47           
  Lines          1737     1737           
  Branches        209      209           
=========================================
  Hits           1579     1579           
  Misses           94       94           
  Partials         64       64           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[github-advanced-security]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

[userai-dev]

Tested variant of deploy "Build and Run LPVS from Source Code" on basic scenarios- no issues:
2024-01-10T16:15:09.638+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 1
2024-01-10T16:15:09.686+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::1] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...
2024-01-10T16:16:25.162+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 2
2024-01-10T16:16:25.165+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::2] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...
2024-01-10T16:17:39.253+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 3
2024-01-10T16:17:39.255+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::3] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...

2024-01-10T16:18:58.722+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 4
2024-01-10T16:18:58.733+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::4] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...
2024-01-10T16:19:48.424+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 5
2024-01-10T16:19:48.426+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::5] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...
2024-01-10T16:20:56.730+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ main] c.l.service.LPVSQueueProcessorService : PROCESS Webhook id = 6
2024-01-10T16:20:56.731+02:00 INFO 45584 --- [ LPVS-ASYNC::6] com.lpvs.service.LPVSQueueService : GitHub queue processing...

Needed additional tests with Docker scenarios- when it will be ready.

[o-konoval]

At the moment- variant of deploy "Build and Run LPVS from Source Code" on basic scenarios- no issues.
Needed additional tests with Docker scenarios- when it will be ready.
Approved.

[t-naumenko]

LGTM
Docker scenario tested - working properly.
Approved.

[o-kopysov]

+1

[m-rudyk]

Approved