Replace static table with new cvmfs-monitor

[sebastian-luna-valero]

Summary

@jose-caballero what do you think?

---

Related issue :

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ⚠️ WARNING

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	2		0	0.03s
✅ EDITORCONFIG	editorconfig-checker	5		0	0.02s
✅ JSON	jsonlint	1		0	0.15s
⚠️ JSON	prettier	1		1	0.29s
✅ JSON	v8r	1		0	2.01s
⚠️ MARKDOWN	markdownlint	1		1	0.57s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdown-link-check	1		0	4.93s
⚠️ MARKDOWN	markdown-table-formatter	1		1	0.29s
✅ REPOSITORY	checkov	yes		no	15.56s
✅ REPOSITORY	gitleaks	yes		no	0.08s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	0.21s
✅ REPOSITORY	secretlint	yes		no	2.54s
✅ REPOSITORY	trivy-sbom	yes		no	0.79s
✅ SPELL	lychee	4		0	1.07s
⚠️ YAML	prettier	2		1	0.31s
✅ YAML	v8r	2		0	3.41s
✅ YAML	yamllint	2		0	0.33s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports
Set VALIDATE_ALL_CODEBASE: true in mega-linter.yml to validate all sources, not only the diff

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[jose-caballero]

Do not replace it. The table includes links to the organisations/experiments, which are not included in the monitoring.

[sebastian-luna-valero]

ok @jose-caballero but would it be ok to link to the CVMFS monitor after the static table?

on the other hand, it would also be a good idea to show the links to the organisations/experiments in the dynamic table shown by the CVMFS monitor

[jose-caballero]

adding the link should be ok

[jose-caballero]

Making changes for Confluence is a nightmare. All those built-in checks are more a problem than a solution.

[gwarf]

Making changes for Confluence is a nightmare. All those built-in checks are more a problem than a solution.

Confluence?

We are moving to a new check stack, and it's the one of the first real PR with it, so we have to fix some initial setup.

But we think it's helpful to have checks, even if it can need some effort indeed at some point in time :)

[gwarf]

LGTM.
I merged various fixes, to address issues with the new mega-linter setup.