Add support for admin-only evaluation feedback.

[veluca93]

Admin-only feedback is either automatically generated by the white diff comparison step, or by outputting an additional line on stderr from the checker that starts with ADMIN_MESSAGE:.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 81.72043% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 54.72%. Comparing base (fcb1905) to head (08af5d4).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cms/grading/steps/whitediff.py	70.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
cms/grading/tasktypes/util.py	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
cms/grading/tasktypes/TwoSteps.py	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
cms/grading/steps/trusted.py	90.47%	2 Missing ⚠️
cms/grading/scoretypes/abc.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1642      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   54.67%   54.72%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         335      335              
  Lines       27356    27400      +44     
==========================================
+ Hits        14956    14995      +39     
- Misses      12400    12405       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
functionaltests	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
unittests	54.72% <81.72%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[prandla]

looks like a neat feature, thanks.

imo it'd make more sense to have the admin details be after the public details column though. did you have any reason for having them in this order?

[veluca93]

looks like a neat feature, thanks.

imo it'd make more sense to have the admin details be after the public details column though. did you have any reason for having them in this order?

No reason :-)

[prandla]

also, please update the return type annotations on the functions you changed. (do you not use LSP when developing, or do you just ignore all the type errors out of habit?)

[veluca93]

also, please update the return type annotations on the functions you changed. (do you not use LSP when developing, or do you just ignore all the type errors out of habit?)

I did not have a LSP set up for Python :-) now I do