Fix edge case in OverpassQL query rewriting

[jake-low]

Fixes maproulette/maproulette3#2414

My recent changes to the query rewriting logic had broken the (perfectly valid) query in the linked issue. The problem is that query has settings formatted over multiple lines. I noted in a comment that rewriteQuery wouldn't understand these settings, but what I didn't think about was that this would mean it would prepend a second set of settings, and having more than one settings statement is a syntax error in OverpassQL.

The fix I'm proposing here is to check if there appear to be any settings given anywhere in the query, using a crude String.contains check that should have no false negatives. If there are, rewriteQuery will return the query unmodified, and only if there aren't will it prepend the default [out:json] and timeout settings.

I'd appreciate a careful review of this. The list of OverpassQL settings is here and is what I based the settings array in the PR on.

An assumption I'm making with this code that should be reviewed is that an OverpassQL setting starts with [ + a setting name + :, e.g. [out:json]. OverpassQL query expressions often also contain [, e.g. way[highway = motorway];, and they may also contain :, e.g. way["piste:type" = "advanced"]; or node[amenity = parking](around:100);. However, I believe they never contain [ + a bare string + :, unless that entire sequence appeared inside a quoted string. I'm only searching for a list of known settings names, not \[.*:, so the odds of this triggering a false positive seem very low. Therefore, I believe that the check on line 801 should always be true if the query contains any settings, and additionally should almost never be true if the query does not contain any settings (something like node[name ~ "[out:xml]"] would trigger a false positive but that's a pretty contrived edge case IMO).

Feedback or suggested testcases are welcome.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[ljdelight]

LGTM. The items I tested last time still pass, and the user-provided failed queries now pass. In the near future we can simplify this a bit to avoid trying to implement an overpassql parser, but it's good enough to avoid basic issues and improves the errors provided to users.