Fix ASYNC110 violation in edge3 worker

[sanwar47]

The polling loop introduced in #66144 to wait for the supervisor process
to fully exit after grabbing results from the queue used the pattern
while job.is_running: await sleep(0.1).

This trips ruff's ASYNC110 rule (flake8-async: avoid await inside a
while-condition loop) and was causing the static-checks CI job to fail
on every open PR.

Fix: refactor to the equivalent while True / if not break form, which
is ASYNC110-clean and has identical runtime behaviour.

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example Dag that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[jscheffl]

The code has just been replaced by PR #65943 - nevertheless functionally the PR does not change but just models it in a way that RUFF does not complaint. It is not improving the polling busy loop at all. So a check violation exclusion would be preferred in my view.