Fix the jobs status script so it works with the new gbasf2 version

[eckerpatrick]

There were some changes in the recent gbasf2 update which caused failures in the job status script, as the CS is not anymore automatically initialized by the userCreds decorator.

[eckerpatrick]

this fixes https://github.com/nils-braun/b2luigi/issues/208

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (5815d46) 60.51% compared to head (fa7f42c) 60.87%. Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #209 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 60.51% 60.87% +0.36% ========================================== Files 23 23 Lines 1593 1595 +2 ========================================== + Hits 964 971 +7 + Misses 629 624 -5 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun) | `60.87% <54.54%> (+0.36%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [b2luigi/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun#diff-YjJsdWlnaS9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `88.46% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [b2luigi/batch/processes/gbasf2.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun#diff-YjJsdWlnaS9iYXRjaC9wcm9jZXNzZXMvZ2Jhc2YyLnB5) | `49.78% <50.00%> (+0.52%)` | :arrow_up: | ... and [6 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/nils-braun/b2luigi/pull/209/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=Nils+Braun)

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[meliache]

Thanks, that looks great :+1: ! @0ctagon had figured out the changed import paths but was missing initializeCS().

If you don't mind I'll also add commit 4418938e2b7def3f1f392147ff884c8bdea946c0 for better catching unexpected errors of gbasf2_job_status.py. In the b2luigi in the subprocess call of gbasf2_job_status.py we only checked for a job status of 3, which happens when result["OK"] is False. However, any other unexpected crash of that script resulted in a non-zero exit code which b2luigi ignored and just continued with a garbage string. Therefore, we should also raise error messages for other non-zero exit codes. Not sure if that would have resulted in a better/earlier error message in this particular case though.

What's finally missing is a Changelog entry.

[eckerpatrick]

@meliache sounds good to catch also other failures! Will you also add the changelog in this context or should I add it?

[meliache]

@eckerpatrick Oh you're quick, I just added a Changelog entry in addition to 4418938e2b7def3f1f392147ff884c8bdea946c0. Can you just make a quick check that my changes didn't brick anything? They are minor and shouldn't brake anything, but I have no way to run gbasf2 to check anymore and who knows what I might have overlooked.

(These days I started sometimes merging minor hotfixes/improvements without proper code review using my admin authority and because it'd difficult to find reviewers/testers these day. But people get active here when something is broken so I'm happy to exploit that.)