Fix typo in Updater.cpp

[eltociear]

arguement -> argument

Checklist

1. Please provide specific title of the PR describing the change, including the component name (eg. „Update of Documentation link on Readme.md“)
2. Please provide related links (eg. Issue which will be closed by this Pull Request)
3. Please update relevant Documentation if applicable
4. Please check Contributing guide
5. Please confirm option to "Allow edits and access to secrets by maintainers" when opening a Pull Request

This entire section above can be deleted if all items are checked.

---

Description of Change

Please describe your proposed Pull Request and it's impact.

Tests scenarios

Please describe on what Hardware and Software combinations you have tested this Pull Request and how.

(eg. I have tested my Pull Request on Arduino-esp32 core v2.0.2 with ESP32 and ESP32-S2 Board with this scenario)

Related links

Please provide links to related issue, PRs etc.

(eg. Closes #number of issue)

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Fix typo in Updater.cpp": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

👋 Hello eltociear, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 6046b69