chore: fix npm-publish dependencies and add provenance

[legendecas]

The npm-publish steps depends on output variable release-please.outputs.release_created. Without this variable the steps are skipped, e.g. https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp/actions/runs/12087642317.

---

Adds npm provenance statements: https://docs.npmjs.com/generating-provenance-statements#example-github-actions-workflow.

---

The release-please bot created PR needs an additional token to trigger CI runs:

When you use the repository's GITHUB_TOKEN to perform tasks, events triggered by the GITHUB_TOKEN will not create a new workflow run. This prevents you from accidentally creating recursive workflow runs.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/choosing-when-your-workflow-runs/triggering-a-workflow#triggering-a-workflow-from-a-workflow

Removing the always skipped release tests for now.

[legendecas]

@nodejs/node-gyp would you mind taking a look at this so that we can release v10.3.0? Thank you!

[cclauss]

This assumption does not make me comfortable. When you vendor-in source code, it becomes your code, and you should run your own tests on it.

[lukekarrys]

Can we run two separate checks? It would be great to surface issues in /gyp because we do vendor it. But in the past it has created friction because a linting error in /gyp code would fail all of CI.

[lukekarrys]

@legendecas Can we revert this part and re-open as a new PR? It would be nice to unblock the release from CI and figure out python linting in a separate discussion.

[legendecas]

This is added because the ruff check is failing in this repo: https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp/actions/runs/12087642318/job/33709509643. But the ruff check is not failing on the gyp-next repo.

There are differences on the ruff configurations between the two repos. I'm fine with reverting this one but we will have to merge this PR with failing CIs.

[lukekarrys]

Thanks for the explanation @legendecas, I didn't realize CI was failing. I think this change should be landed to make CI green and a new issue/PR opened to get two different ruff checks running, each with the correct configuration.

[lukekarrys]

Approved but I think the ruff check changes should move to a separate PR discussion.