Update dependency com.puppycrawl.tools:checkstyle to v13

[renovate]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Confidence
com.puppycrawl.tools:checkstyle (source)	12.3.1 → 13.0.0

---

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

---

Release Notes

checkstyle/checkstyle (com.puppycrawl.tools:checkstyle)

v13.0.0

Checkstyle 13.0.0 - https://checkstyle.org/releasenotes.html#Release_13.0.0

Breaking backward compatibility:

#​17430 - Use jdk21 as minimial required

Bug fixes:

#​18409 - Remove duplicate violations in WhitespaceAfter and WhitespaceAround in sun_checks.xml

Other Changes:

jdk21: activate MissingNullCaseInSwitch for checkstyle project
Resolve Pitest Suppressions - imports
Conversion to Enhance Switch for AnnotationUseStyle Check Causing Jacoco Coverage Issue
Convert eligible classes to records
pitest: increase mutation coverage for indentation profile to 100%
Resolve Pitest Suppressions - filters
Fix xdocs Examples AST Consistency Test (Reduce suppressions list)
EmptyLineSeparator ignores configured tokens: reports violations for unlisted tokens and skips listed ones
Enforce file size on Java inputs
Store SARIF schema locally to avoid external network dependency
Update `JavadocCommentsTokenTypes.java` to new format of AST print

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - Between 12:00 AM and 03:59 AM ( * 0-3 * * * ) (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

[github-actions]

Please take a moment and address the merge conflicts of your pull request. Thanks!

[MarkEWaite]

Tested in plugin BOM pull request:

• jenkinsci/bom#6186

I'll investigate the failing test further. This upgrade of a static analysis tool upgrade should not be cause a test to fail, but more investigation is needed.

[MarkEWaite]

The Launchable report of the test history for Security3630Test shows 8 test failures since 12 Dec 2025. In that period, there were likely many hundreds of test runs. I've restarted the job on ci.jenkins.io to confirm that the test failure is not repeatable and am running a testing loop on 3 machines to see if I can see the failures locally on those machines.

Screenshot of the Launchable report

[MarkEWaite]

No failures of the Security3630Test on any of the three machines. 39 test runs completed without a failure. Ignoring the test failure for now.

[MarkEWaite]

This PR is now ready for merge. We will merge it after approximately 24 hours if there is no negative feedback.

/label ready-for-merge

[A1exKH]

LGTM.