Fix issue 15678 Key no longer appear in exception messages

[qxggg]

What is the purpose of the change?

see #15678
This change introduces support for masking sensitive parameters when building URL strings in Dubbo.
Previously, parameters such as password, secretKey, or other user-defined sensitive fields could be exposed in logs or configuration outputs.
The update ensures that:
1. Sensitive parameter names can be configured through
dubbo.url.sensitive-parameter-names.
2. Any parameter matching the sensitive list is automatically excluded when the URL string is generated.
3. The behavior is covered by unit tests, ensuring consistent functionality and preventing regressions.

Checklist

• Make sure there is a GitHub_issue field for the change.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Write necessary unit-test to verify your logic correction. If the new feature or significant change is committed, please remember to add sample in dubbo samples project.
• Make sure gitHub actions can pass. Why the workflow is failing and how to fix it?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 60.79%. Comparing base (338d018) to head (ae54d2f).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...mon/src/main/java/org/apache/dubbo/common/URL.java	75.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                3.3   #15812      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     60.77%   60.79%   +0.01%     
- Complexity    11695    11704       +9     
============================================
  Files          1938     1938              
  Lines         88679    88694      +15     
  Branches      13386    13390       +4     
============================================
+ Hits          53896    53918      +22     
- Misses        29251    29252       +1     
+ Partials       5532     5524       -8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration-tests-java21	32.45% <56.25%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
integration-tests-java8	32.45% <56.25%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
samples-tests-java21	32.03% <56.25%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
samples-tests-java8	29.62% <56.25%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java11	59.09% <87.50%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
unit-tests-java17	58.58% <87.50%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
unit-tests-java21	58.57% <87.50%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unit-tests-java25	58.53% <93.75%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unit-tests-java8	59.08% <93.75%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

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:

• ❄️ 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.

[qxggg]

@oxsean @zrlw @RainYuY I simplified and revised the previous PR implementation by others and rewrote the test cases. Could you please take a look when you have time and let me know if it meets your original requirements?