Improve throttling in sync jobs

[kozlovb]

What does this PR do?

The DBMAsyncJob class allows synchronous and asynchronous jobs to run at fixed intervals.
This PR updates the approach to throttling in the sync jobs of the DBMAsyncJob class. Rather than pausing a thread after executing the job, we now evaluate whether the job should proceed. For example, if a job is scheduled to run every 10 seconds and only 1 second has passed since its last execution, the run_job_loop call will not trigger the job.

Motivation

This change enables running synchronous jobs on the main thread without putting the main thread to sleep after each job execution.

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Changelog entries must be created for modifications to shipped code
• Add the qa/skip-qa label if the PR doesn't need to be tested during QA.
• If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

[jmeunier28]

@kozlovb can you change the changelog to be this:

Fix the DBMAsyncJob class' job throttling feature by checking if the job should run instead of putting the thread to sleep. This prevents the class from holding the main check thread in cases where the job is run in Sync mode.

I don't think the current wording is straightforward, and our support people / customers will need to understand these changelog entries

[kozlovb]

@kozlovb can you change the changelog to be this:

Fix the DBMAsyncJob class' job throttling feature by checking if the job should run instead of putting the thread to sleep. This prevents the class from holding the main check thread in cases where the job is run in Sync mode.

I don't think the current wording is straightforward, and our support people / customers will need to understand these changelog entries

Let me try to rephrase but I dont have a mental modal of support people knowledge of our internal classes. May be we should rather indicate to them that it's some internal stuff ?

[jmeunier28]

Let me try to rephrase but I dont have a mental modal of support people knowledge of our internal classes. May be we should rather indicate to them that it's some internal stuff ?

It's internal, but can affect the way the check runs. @christinaduffy57 maybe you can weigh in here? What would be useful to you in terms of wording? I think it makes sense to be a bit more technical