fix(job_attachment)!: use username instead of group for Windows file permissions setting

[gahyusuh]

What was the problem/requirement? (What/Why)

The use of group names in permission settings for Windows file system was identified as unnecessary for our needs. Windows uses ACLs for controlling access to directories and files, and it offers flexibility to assign specific permissions directly to individual trustees (users), so the use of group name seemed to be redundant.

What was the solution? (How)

1. In the WindowsFileSystemPermissionSettings class, made the os_group field Optional.
   • Later, once the Worker Agent that instantiate this class (here) is updated to not pass the os_group field, we can completely remove this optional field from Job Attachment code.
2. Updated the permission setting logic to use usernames instead of group names for ACL settings.

What is the impact of this change?

This change simplifies the permission setting process in Windows by removing unnecessary os_group.

How was this change tested?

• Unit tests: fix a few existing tests to accommodate the changes, ensuring all tests passed.
• Scripted test: run scripted_tests/set_file_permission_for_windows.py to verify that the specified permissions were correctly applied to files, with the permissions being granted to the specified user.

Was this change documented?

Yes, we have a written document that justifies this change.

Is this a breaking change?

No.

[epmog]

Swapping from group -> user still has an effect on the behaviour, no? And now we effectively ignore the group? Should this be a breaking change since the permissions are changing in a non-backwards compatible way (even if the API handles it in a backwards compatible way)? Let me know if I'm holding it wrong

[gahyusuh]

Swapping from group -> user still has an effect on the behaviour, no? And now we effectively ignore the group? Should this be a breaking change since the permissions are changing in a non-backwards compatible way (even if the API handles it in a backwards compatible way)? Let me know if I'm holding it wrong

Yes, we are now ignoring the group name and only using username, and the group name is no longer necessary. I've kept the os_group field optional for backward compatibility. (Let me know please if I am misunderstanding your points.)
And yes you are right, this should be a breaking change.