#1255: Enhance snapshot version recognition in IDEasy

[AdemZarrouki]

This PR fixes #1255

Implemented changes:

• Added isSameSnapshotVersion to compare 2 snapshot versions
• Refactored checkIfUpdateIsAvailable with explicit snapshot vs stable version comparison logic

---

Testing instructions

1. For the test i added some two unit tests testCheckIfUpdateIsAvailableWithSameSnapshotVersions and testCheckIfUpdateIsAvailableWithDifferentSnapshotVersions.
2. It should be tested after the merge as with GraalVM, when running "C:\Users\projects\IDEasy\workspaces\main\IDEasy\cli\target\ideasy.exe" status you get only 2026.05.001-SNAPSHOT so we can't really compare it with the latest version (here 2026.05.001-20260520.032326-18)

---

Checklist for this PR

Make sure everything is checked before merging this PR. For further info please also see
our DoD.

• When running mvn clean test locally all tests pass and build is successful
• PR title is of the form #«issue-id»: «brief summary» (e.g. #921: fixed setup.bat). If no issue ID exists, title only.
• PR top-level comment summarizes what has been done and contains link to addressed issue(s)
• PR and issue(s) have suitable labels
• Issue is set to In Progress and assigned to you or there is no issue (might happen for very small PRs)
• You followed all coding conventions
• You have added the issue implemented by your PR in CHANGELOG.adoc unless issue is labeled
  with internal
• You have formulated clear instructions on how to test your contribution under "Testing instructions"

[coveralls]

Coverage Report for CI Build 26283433836

Coverage increased (+0.006%) to 71.121%

Details

• Coverage increased (+0.006%) from the base build.
• Patch coverage: No coverable lines changed in this PR.
• 75 coverage regressions across 2 files.

Uncovered Changes

No uncovered changes found.

Coverage Regressions

75 previously-covered lines in 2 files lost coverage.

File	Lines Losing Coverage	Coverage
com/devonfw/tools/ide/tool/IdeasyCommandlet.java	74	73.15%
com/devonfw/tools/ide/version/VersionSegment.java	1	89.76%

---

Coverage Stats

Relevant Lines:	15590
Covered Lines:	11567
Line Coverage:	74.19%
Relevant Branches:	6970
Covered Branches:	4478
Branch Coverage:	64.25%
Branches in Coverage %:	Yes
Coverage Strength:	3.14 hits per line

---

💛 - Coveralls

[hohwille]

@AdemZarrouki thanks for your PR and sorry for stepping in early. I just found some time to have a look already and want to give fast feedback...
Your approach looks good and your test with overriding the methods in anonymous class is very elegant to properly test the logic. 👍
For the regex stuff I left some suggestion to improve.

[hohwille]

As a best-practice we create Patterns as constants. This has the following advantages:

• the pattern is compile only once (what takes some time even though it may be peanuts, in a server side app with millions of users this could make a difference) when the class is loaded and not every time the method gets executed
• if the pattern has a syntax error you get fast fail behaviour and an exception will already be raised when the class is loaded and not only later when the method gets executed. Should not make much difference since you also cover the method in a JUnit test but if the regex breaks you would already get an exception if you run IDEasy but forget to run the test...
• when we use groups, we even add a comment above to mark the group numbers so complex regular expressions get maintainable. See e.g. https://github.com/m-m-m/db/blob/c2b356923cf915ee6a1e13087f321b52fc494f95/schema/src/main/java/io/github/mmm/db/schema/impl/DbSchemaManagerImpl.java#L32-L34 (I was thinking or hoping that we follow these best-practices already in IDEasy but unfortunately not really yet - but it is never too late to improve the code style so for existing code I may find the time to do a cleanup PR on regex stuff).

I would simply create two REGEX constants one for the SNAPSHOT version pattern build into IDEasy and one for the maven/nexus SNAPSHOT version pattern for downloads.
Then you can compare the corresponding groups from both matchers in one go.
IMHO that would be easier to understand than having first two identical redundant regex patterns only for the base version and then additional regex patterns for the part after the dash.
WDYT?

[AdemZarrouki]

@hohwille thanks for the early review and the improvements you mentioned. I updated the PR with the requested changes and also i think that using two REGEX constants is easier to understand.