Update tooling to match other CFPB packages

[niqjohnson]

Updates our tooling to match other CFPB-maintained packages. See cfpb/wagtail-flags#77 for a similar update.

The actual impetus for this is that when running tox -e lint, black and isort wanted to make conflicting changes to a handful of files. Instead of fighting with that, I figured it was a good time to bring this package in line with the tooling in our other packages before updating it for Wagtail 7.

Additions

• Pre-commit config
• bandit for static security analysis
• setuptools_scm for versioning so we won't have to manually update a version number in pyproject.toml

Removals

• black and isort for linting

Changes

• Use ruff exclusively for formatting, linting, and import-sorting. ruff can replace black and isort and is faster. We've replaced black and isort with ruff in most of our other packages and projects.
• A few linting fixes identified by ruff
• Bump actions dependencies to latest (see Bump all actions dependencies to latest consumerfinance.gov#9041)

Testing

1. All tests, including linting, should pass with tox
2. PR checks should pass

Checklist

• PR has an informative and human-readable title
• Changes are limited to a single goal (no scope creep)
• Code can be automatically merged (no conflicts)
• Code follows the standards laid out in the development playbook
• Passes all existing automated tests
• Reviewers requested with the Reviewers tool ➡️

[niqjohnson]

ruff suggested changing to _row_index and _column_index since they weren't used inside the loop, but I wasn't sure if that change would have an effect, so I ignored the lines. I can change them if that seems like an OK change.

[chosak]

I suspect this could just be

for row in value.rows:
    for child in row:

The purpose of Python's built-in enumerate is to generate numeric indexes as you iterate over an iterable, useful for various purposes including debugging. Since we're not using those indexes (row_index and column_index), there's no reason to use enumerate at all. Maybe this was here because of some long-ago debugging? @willbarton do you remember?

@niqjohnson maybe try removing the enumerate and index variables entirely and see if tests still pass.

[willbarton]

I suspect it's from an earlier iteration of this code where the index served as part of the "path" to where a block value exists within the table. But I agree, it's not being used, so we can jettison enumerate entirely.

[niqjohnson]

Thanks, @chosak and @willbarton. All the tests still pass without the enumeration, which I removed in db89bf7.