fix(nextcloud)!: Throw DynamiteStatusCodeExceptions for invalid WebDAV status codes

[provokateurin]

Fixes #2307

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 63.79310% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 30.29%. Comparing base (970ad83) to head (801599c).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...es/nextcloud/lib/src/api/webdav/webdav_client.dart	63.79%	21 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2475   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   30.29%   30.29%           
=======================================
  Files         352      352           
  Lines      124360   124389   +29     
=======================================
+ Hits        37671    37680    +9     
- Misses      86689    86709   +20     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
account_repository	98.77% <ø> (ø)
cookie_store	99.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
dashboard_app	96.05% <ø> (ø)
dynamite	31.08% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
dynamite_end_to_end_test	61.69% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
dynamite_runtime	85.40% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
neon_dashboard	96.05% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
neon_framework	57.10% <ø> (ø)
neon_http_client	96.69% <ø> (ø)
neon_notifications	100.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
neon_talk	99.45% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
nextcloud	25.90% <63.79%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
notifications_app	100.00% <ø> (ø)
sort_box	90.90% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 970ad83
talk_app	99.09% <ø> (ø)

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...es/nextcloud/lib/src/api/webdav/webdav_client.dart	87.84% <63.79%> (-11.50%)	⬇️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[Leptopoda]

I'm not so sure about the first commit.
Maybe we should wait with any refactors in that regard until we've decided on how we tackle other webdav based clients.

[provokateurin]

Maybe we should wait with any refactors in that regard until we've decided on how we tackle other webdav based clients.

I think any refactor to support CalDAV and CardDAV will need this even more as the clients get even more different from the generated ones by extending the base DAV client in some form (e.g. polymorphism or some other way).

But yeah I can drop it from here as it is not necessary for the second commit and only an internal refactor that isn't breaking anyone so it can be done at any point.