Add an option to copy FoundationDB cluster files to a writable temporary file

[jon-signal]

What does this PR do?

This pull request adds an option to FoundationDB integration instances to allow the check to make a writable copy of the cluster file before passing it to the FoundationDB client. This closes #19677.

Motivation

Please see #19677 for a detailed description of the problem, but in short, FoundationDB clients want a writable copy of the cluster file. It can be hard to provide a writable copy when running in a Kubernetes environment (the most common way to get the cluster file in that case is by mounting a ConfigMap as a file, but that will always be read-only), and so this option provides a mechanism to satisfy the FoundationDB client without jumping through Terrible Ops Hoops™.

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• [ ] Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• [ ] Add the qa/skip-qa label if the PR doesn't need to be tested during QA.
• [ ] If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:x: Patch coverage is 66.66667% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review. :white_check_mark: Project coverage is 88.63%. Comparing base (f5532e4) to head (de59b5b). :warning: Report is 876 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

Flag	Coverage Δ
activemq	?
cassandra	?
foundationdb	81.88% <66.66%> (-0.58%)	:arrow_down:
hive	?
hivemq	?
hudi	?
ignite	?
jboss_wildfly	?
kafka	?
presto	?
solr	?

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

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[hestonhoffman]

Hello from the docs team 👋 I'm going to hold off on reviewing the stuff in the spec file until the Agent team has taken a look, in case their review necessitates changes to that file. I'll check back in, but feel free to ping me after the Agent team's review if I haven't reviewed yet.

[jon-signal]

Hey, @steveny91, I really appreciate all the review on the bazillions of other FoundationDB pull requests over the past few weeks! I recognize that those were more metric-y and that this is a little bit more of a plumbing thing; are you still the right person to take a look at this one? Thanks kindly!

[jon-signal]

Friends, with respect, it sounds like there might not be much interest in this contribution. That's okay if so! But it'd be great to get an opinion one way or the other!

[sarah-witt]

I'm very sorry @jon-signal I started looking at this PR but it must have slipped through. Taking a look now!

[jon-signal]

Thank you, and no worries! I really appreciate all the review you(se) have already done!