Tidying up around the project meta files

[AbstractUmbra]

Description

This PR touches on several files within the project, targetting specifically the project meta files.
(The dependabot and uv lock are likely controversial changes and I can remove them if needed!)

This includes the following:

• pyproject.toml
  • Formatted
  • Removed dead or unused Ruff rules
  • Removed an in-use Ruff rule with only 1 infraction (SIM910)
  • Added ruff as a dev dependency for ease for contributors.
• uv.lock
  • This file ensures uv contributors have the correct dependencies when working on the project, it has no effect on users.
• .github/workflows
  • I have updated all actions to their latest versions (Node 22 is deprecated and flagged for removal so updating earlier is beneficial).
  • I replaced an archived ruff action with the official one.
  • I replaced the running of ruff actions with their check variants to output a cleaner code on the action run.
  • I added newlines between each step for ease of reading.
• .github/dependabot.yaml
  • I added this to keep up to date on gh-actions versions (see earlier message about deprecation).
  • I included a cooldown/grace period of 12 days so we're not spammed with new versions as soon as they arrive, but instead ~12 days after to allow for potential fix versions, etc.
  • I left a commented out section for it to manage dependency versions too, but that can be removed if not required.

Checklist

• If code changes were made then they have been tested.
  • I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes.
  • I have updated the changelog with a quick recap of my changes.
• This PR fixes an issue.
• This PR adds something new (e.g. new method or parameters).
• This PR is a breaking change (e.g. methods or parameters removed/renamed)
• This PR is not a code change (e.g. documentation, README, ...)
• I have read and agree to the Developer Certificate of Origin for this contribution

[AbstractUmbra]

The failed runs on this PR raises the conversation I wanted to have.
We previously included the rule to ignore "line too long" but we still had a line-length rule. Which source of truth do we follow?

Should I fix the line-too-long issues, or should I re-ignore the error... or ignore the specific breaches as they come?

[EvieePy]

I believe when this was discussed the rule existed because at the time ruff formatted lines that were in our opinion appropriate to sometimes go over (e.g. comments). Unsure if that's still the case though.