feat: new json format for output

[mastersans]

fixes: #3259

• Initial implementation of Json2 format.
• Test and Documentation.
• schema updation in $schema field.

Temporary file is added for reference.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 30.66667% with 52 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.04%. Comparing base (d6cbe40) to head (87b70ff).
Report is 225 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
cve_bin_tool/output_engine/json_output.py	24.59%	46 Missing ⚠️
cve_bin_tool/output_engine/__init__.py	33.33%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3980      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.41%   81.04%   +5.62%     
==========================================
  Files         808      821      +13     
  Lines       11983    12607     +624     
  Branches     1598     1953     +355     
==========================================
+ Hits         9037    10217    +1180     
+ Misses       2593     1962     -631     
- Partials      353      428      +75     

Flag	Coverage Δ
longtests	80.59% <30.66%> (+5.17%)	⬆️
win-longtests	79.07% <30.66%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[mastersans]

hey @anthonyharrison i have got this initial implementation for json format, can you check it out.

[mastersans]

@terriko can you check it out too, also should i try to finish this one before 3.3 release so that it can go with the release or it should be reserved for 3.3.1 ?

[mastersans]

for current reference

[terriko]

I've flagged this as being for 3.3.1 since I'm trying to pare down my todo list before the 3.3 release now.

[mastersans]

hey @anthonyharrison can you take a look at this one for review?

[terriko]

Looks like this needs a merge conflict resolution. I think we're also still waiting on a review from @anthonyharrison ? Let's aim to get this merged by next week because I'd very much like it to be in the pre-release for 3.4.

[terriko]

Okay, I don't know if @anthonyharrison is going to get a chance, but I've read through it again and it looks good to me, so let's get this merged and if we need to make tweaks they can come in separate PRs. I think we probably still want to have an actual schema so we can set up validation tests with it, but I'll open a separate issue for that and tag you.

Thanks again for being so patient on this @mastersans !