Use ToolOptions in remaining CLI tools

[anishtilekar]

Closes #687.

Went through the list of Tools that Alice pointed out in the issue and switched them over to ToolOptions instead of pulling values straight off the CommandLine. Same behavior everywhere, just less repeated line.hasOption(...) ? line.getOptionValue(...) : ... boilerplate.

Tools updated:

• ActionSimulatorTool
• DynamicSimulationTool
• ListDynamicSimulationModelsTool
• ConversionTool
• RunLoadFlowTool
• ValidationTool
• RunScriptTool
• CompareSecurityAnalysisResultsTool
• SensitivityAnalysisTool

Didn't touch PluginsInfoTool and VersionTool even though they were on the list - they don't actually declare any command line options, so there's nothing for ToolOptions to wrap. Happy to add something there if I'm missing the point though.

One side effect: ActionSimulatorToolTest mocked CommandLine.getOptionValue() for the required case-file/dsl-file options but never stubbed hasOption() for them. ToolOptions.getValue() checks hasOption() first, so 3 tests started failing until I added the missing stubs (same pattern already used in SecurityAnalysisToolTest).

Ran mvn test on all the touched modules, everything green, checkstyle happy.

[alicecaron]

for required options throw a missing required option ParseException like in other tools implementation.

Suggested change

	Path caseFile = options.getPath(CASE_FILE).orElseThrow(IllegalStateException::new);
	Path caseFile = options.getPath(CASE_FILE).orElseThrow(() -> new ParseException("Missing required option: " + CASE_FILE));

Maybe it could be interesting, to handle this option check homogeneously, to have in the ToolOptions class some getRequiredPath, getRequiredValue, getRequiredFloat etc... methods that return the option value or throws this error ? or to add a parameter isRequired in the existing methods (then it would imply a breaking change in tool options usages)
What do you think @olperr1 ?

[alicecaron]

and rebase this branch on this one Partharsid:tool-options-conversion-tool once it is merged to also handle th refacto on it

[anishtilekar]

good call, swapped those over to ParseException with the missing-option message so it matches the rest of the codebase.

also pulled my ConversionTool changes back out since #4047 already covers that file, no point having two PRs fight over it. will rebase this branch once that one lands.