[Common]: add user-friendly interface for trackTuner configuration.

[mfaggin]

With this PR I add a user-friendly interface to configure the TrackTuner object in the Common/TableProducer/trackPropagation.cxx workflow.

Inspired by the PR #6311 , I'm now proposing to make the struct TrackTuner to inherit from o2::framework::ConfigurableGroup. In this way:

• Configurables data members can be defined for the struct TrackTuner;
• they appear automatically in the list of Configurables of the workflow in which the instance of the TrackTuner is declared. In particular, the TrackTuner configurations appear now in the Configurable list of Common/TableProducer/trackPropagation.cxx in a trackTuner block, i.e.:

"track-propagation": {
        "trackTuner": {
            "debugInfo": "false",
            "updateTrackDCAs": "true",
            "updateTrackCovMat": "true",
            "updateCurvature": "false",
            "updateCurvatureIU": "false",
            "updatePulls": "true",
            "isInputFileFromCCDB": "true",
            "pathInputFile": "Users\/m\/mfaggin\/test\/inputsTrackTuner\/pp2023\/pass4\/correct_names",
            "nameInputFile": "trackTuner_DataLHC23hPass4_McLHC23k4g.root",
            "pathFileQoverPt": "Users\/h\/hsharma\/qOverPtGraphs",
            "nameFileQoverPt": "D0sigma_Data_removal_itstps_MC_LHC22b1b.root",
            "usePvRefitCorrections": "false",
            "qOverPtMC": "-1",
            "qOverPtData": "-1"
        },
       ...
}

With this PR I keep the possibility to configure the TrackTuner via std::string, to grant backwards compatibility. However, I think that at a certain point we can make this option obsolete, and in case one can consider deprecating this option already in this PR.
What do you think?
I leave the PR in draft for the time being.

Tagging @phymanshu and @arossi81 for their knowledge (just a technical development, that does not touch at all the TrackTuner working principles).

The same approach can be utilized wherever a custom TrackTuner instance is present.
Hoping to tag all interested people: @njacazio , @mpuccio , @fmazzasc , @ivorobye , @lbariogl , @nepeivodaRS, @fcatalan92 @fgrosa @fcolamar

[mfaggin]

@jgrosseo @ddobrigk @iarsene @ktf can you please have a look? Thank you.

[ktf]

Do you really need such a banner?

[mfaggin]

Hi @ktf , it's just a debug LOG(info) done once in the full execution.
I implemented it to have a reference in the log about which configParams function is used (with or w/o input std::string), since this is related to which source is used for the configuration.

[mfaggin]

@jgrosseo @ktf @ddobrigk @iarsene a gentle reminder

[ddobrigk]

hi everyone, in case of no objection I will merge later tonight so that it is in tomorrow's tag. Please stop me if not ok! Thanks!