[Python] Add Flag to Allow Ignoring Operation Servers

[ckoegel]

Similar to #18934.

This change adds a flag to the configuration object to allow for ignoring operation servers. Currently, if operation level server objects are defined, there is no way to ignore these or use a different base path at the SDK level, which many other languages support. The new ignore_operation_servers flag allows the user to ignore any operation servers defined and instead use the currently defined host. This will default to the top level base path defined in the OpenAPI file, but can be configured to be any url by setting the host for the configuration object.

PR checklist

• [x] Read the contribution guidelines.
• [x] Pull Request title clearly describes the work in the pull request and Pull Request description provides details about how to validate the work. Missing information here may result in delayed response from the community.
• [x] Run the following to build the project and update samples:

  ./mvnw clean package 
  ./bin/generate-samples.sh ./bin/configs/*.yaml
  ./bin/utils/export_docs_generators.sh

  (For Windows users, please run the script in Git BASH) Commit all changed files. This is important, as CI jobs will verify all generator outputs of your HEAD commit as it would merge with master. These must match the expectations made by your contribution. You may regenerate an individual generator by passing the relevant config(s) as an argument to the script, for example ./bin/generate-samples.sh bin/configs/java*. IMPORTANT: Do NOT purge/delete any folders/files (e.g. tests) when regenerating the samples as manually written tests may be removed.

• [x] File the PR against the correct branch: master (upcoming 7.6.0 minor release - breaking changes with fallbacks), 8.0.x (breaking changes without fallbacks)
• [x] If your PR is targeting a particular programming language, @mention the technical committee members, so they are more likely to review the pull request.

@cbornet (2017/09) @tomplus (2018/10) @krjakbrjak (2023/02) @fa0311 (2023/10) @multani (2023/10)

[wing328]

thanks for the PR, which looks good.

if no further feedback, I'll merge it tomorrow