Split codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoList into two commands

[robertbrignull]

Fixes https://github.com/github/vscode-codeql/security/code-scanning/461

codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoList is used from two places, but they're both internal so it's trivial to split the command into two.

Checklist

• CHANGELOG.md has been updated to incorporate all user visible changes made by this pull request.
• Issues have been created for any UI or other user-facing changes made by this pull request.
• [Maintainers only] If this pull request makes user-facing changes that require documentation changes, open a corresponding docs pull request in the github/codeql repo and add the ready-for-doc-review label there.

[shati-patel]

Seems reasonable! Though I'm slightly confused that we now have a lot of command identifiers referencing the same "action". I think it makes sense, since some of them are just the user-facing ones, others are the internal commands? 🤔

e.g. We already have codeQLQueryHistory.copyRepoList, so do we need to define codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoListQueryHistory separately?

[robertbrignull]

@shati-patel, you raise a very good question. Looking into it more, I agree we don't need to have codeQLQueryHistory.copyRepoList immediately delegate to codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoListQueryHistory. In fact I don't think we gain anything by having these extra commands and we can delete codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoListQueryHistory and codeQL.copyVariantAnalysisRepoListView. In both cases we can call VariantAnalysisManager.copyRepoListToClipboard directly and there's no reason not to.

The only thing we then have to consider is if we're still logging enough telemetry, so I've added in some telemetry when copying repo lists in the view. This mirrors what we do for exporting results which is defined just next to it. And in the query history case we're already executing codeQLQueryHistory.copyRepoList so we'll have already logged telemetry about that.

[shati-patel]

Thanks for looking into this in some more detail! Looks good to me locally too ✨

EDIT: the failing test looks legit though 😅

[robertbrignull]

the failing test looks legit though 😅

Yep, I wasn't thinking properly when I wrote that. It should be mocking the right function now 😅