add support for presigned head urls

[RanVaknin]

Builds upon work done in #5476
Addresses #5473, #5276

Motivation and Context

This PR adds the possibility of presigning S3 head operations, a functionality that was supported in v1 and was creating a parity gap and preventing customers from migrating to v2.

Usage Example:

S3Presigner presigner = S3Presigner.create();

PresignedHeadObjectRequest presigned =
            presigner.presignHeadObject(r -> r.signatureDuration(Duration.ofMinutes(30))
                                             .headObjectRequest(hor -> hor
                                                                         .bucket(testBucket)
                                                                         .key(testGetObjectKey)));

SdkHttpClient httpClient = ApacheHttpClient.builder().build(); // or UrlConnectionHttpClient.builder().build()

HttpExecuteRequest request = HttpExecuteRequest.builder()
                                             .request(presigned.httpRequest())
                                             .build();

HttpExecuteResponse response = httpClient.prepareRequest(request).call();
String contentLength = response.httpResponse().firstMatchingHeader("Content-Length").orElse("0");

Modifications

Added presignHeadObject and presignHeadBucket methods to the S3 Presigner. That includes adding model classes for request/response (HeadObjectPresignRequest and PresignedHeadObjectRequest, HeadBucketPresignRequest and PresignedHeadBucketRequest) and adding the marshalling logic for those.

Testing

• Unit tests: Added tests to verify HEAD operations are correctly presigned, including method types, version IDs, and expected bucket owner parameters.
• Integration tests: Added tests to verify presigned HEAD URLs work against actual S3 for both object and bucket operations.

[L-Applin]

Looks good, but I don't remember if we did a surface API review for this? I know it is just small new classes, but these are still new public APIs, do we need to do a quick one?

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
46.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)
8.4% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 3%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

This pull request has been closed and the conversation has been locked. Comments on closed PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need more assistance, please open a new issue that references this one.