ci(tests): Move hardware tests to GitLab

[lucasssvaz]

Description of Change

Reworked test workflows to be able to move hardware tests to internal GitLab.

Test Scenarios

Tested in fork + internal GitLab

Related links

Test results:
https://github.com/lucasssvaz/arduino-esp32/blob/gh-pages/runtime-test-results/RUNTIME_TEST_RESULTS.md

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 492: Code injection": body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Potential fix for code scanning alert no. 500: Code injection": body's lines must not be longer than 100 characters summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 10 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

	Messages
📖	This PR seems to be quite large (total lines of code: 1227), you might consider splitting it into smaller PRs

👋 Hello lucasssvaz, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

---

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- Addressing info messages (📖) is strongly recommended; they're less critical but valuable.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 162ca2c

[github-actions]

Test Results

 76 files   76 suites   12m 59s ⏱️
 38 tests  38 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌
241 runs  241 ✅ 0 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 162ca2c.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.