[O2B-1491] Add current status filtering for environments

[isaachilly]

Introduces a filter for the environment's current status.

Make backend filtering logic handle unknown statuses and to handle known 'MIXED' and 'DONE' statuses.

Updates tests to verify filtering functionality.

I have a JIRA ticket

• branch and/or PR name(s) include(s) JIRA ID
• issue has "Fix version" assigned
• issue "Status" is set to "In review"
• PR labels are selected

Notable changes for users:

• Can filter by an environment's current status now, including environments with an unknown status.

Notable changes for developers:

• Status acronyms now has 'MIXED' and 'DONE' statuses.

Changes made to the database:

• N/A

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 45.64%. Comparing base (bf9d5f4) to head (c6314ab).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...onments/ActiveColumns/environmentsActiveColumns.js	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
.../Environments/Overview/EnvironmentOverviewModel.js	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2031      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   45.47%   45.64%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files        1023     1023              
  Lines       17051    17053       +2     
  Branches     3092     3092              
==========================================
+ Hits         7754     7784      +30     
+ Misses       9297     9269      -28     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Houwie7000]

Looks great! The only feedback that I have is that the filtering now gives the same result if you check every box and when you reset the filters. This makes sense from a technical point of view but makes me wonder if the status filters should have been

1. All checked by default
2. Maybe be an excluding filter? Every checked option excludes that status from results?

I should add that the current functionality matches that of all other filters on the BKP pages, so this is more a discussion point for the Bookkeeping filters as a whole and not your PR specifically.

[isaachilly]

Looks great! The only feedback that I have is that the filtering now gives the same result if you check every box and when you reset the filters. This makes sense from a technical point of view but makes me wonder if the status filters should have been

1. All checked by default

2. Maybe be an excluding filter? Every checked option excludes that status from results?

I should add that the current functionality matches that of all other filters on the BKP pages, so this is more a discussion point for the Bookkeeping filters as a whole and not your PR specifically.

Yes, interesting point. From a UX perspective, I think the current behaviour is quite standard, most sites treat nothing being selected as "don't apply this filter".

Maybe a "Select all" button to quickly be able to get to the state where you only need to select one or two filters not lots to could be a solution could facilitate excluding. A whole new filter might be overkill, users will let us know.

[graduta]

Functionality wise, the changes deliver on the promises. Good job!
There are a few extra bits which are think are not worth adding. Please have a look and let me know what you think