feat: Updated status enum to use TextChoices for 3 models

[chandrasekharan-zipstack]

NOTE: It involves migrations and need to be merged after #1131

What

• Updated status field for below models to use TextChoices correctly
  • WorkflowExecution
  • WorkflowFileExecution
  • FileHistory
• Updated usage of this enum across backend

Why

• The status field was inconsistent and wrongly used as a normal enum / str field
• Had to perform filter checks / writes with enum.value instead of directly using enum

Can this PR break any existing features. If yes, please list possible items. If no, please explain why. (PS: Admins do not merge the PR without this section filled)

• No, minor enum change

Database Migrations

• Schema migrations for this status field update

Related Issues or PRs

• Changes made on top of existing PRs
• #1129 and #1131

Notes on Testing

• Tested some existing APIs and running the workflow locally

Screenshots

Checklist

I have read and understood the Contribution Guidelines.

[github-actions[bot]]

filepath	function	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{passed}}$$	SUBTOTAL
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_logs}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_cleanup}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_cleanup\_skip}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_client\_init}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_image\_exists}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_image}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_container\_run\_config}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_get\_container\_run\_config\_without\_mount}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{runner/src/unstract/runner/clients/test\_docker.py}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{test\_run\_container}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{1}}$$
$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{TOTAL}}$$		$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{9}}$$	$$\textcolor{#23d18b}{\tt{9}}$$

[chandrasekharan-zipstack]

@muhammad-ali-e after I merge this PR to my feature branch, shall I regenerate the migrations to have lesser files? Or do you think that won't cause much of an issue?

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

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 SonarQube Cloud

[muhammad-ali-e]

@muhammad-ali-e after I merge this PR to my feature branch, shall I regenerate the migrations to have lesser files? Or do you think that won't cause much of an issue?

@chandrasekharan-zipstack I think it would be better to have fewer migration files if both are related to the same feature.