Add location_parent_parent_name etc support

[cdtomkins]

Closes #399

What's Changed

Replaces the previous single-parent lookup logic with a dynamic ancestry traversal that supports arbitrary depth in the location hierarchy.

Before

• Only location_name plus an optional location_parent_name were valid
• This could lead to scenarios where uniqueness could not be guaranteed and devices could not be onboarded via CSV.

After

• The new _get_location_by_dynamic_ancestry() method discovers all location_parent* columns in the CSV row, orders them by depth, and walks the hierarchy from root to immediate parent before resolving the target Location.
• This makes the import logic resilient to deeply nested structures (e.g. Region → Campus → Building → Floor → Room).
• Even repeated names in the path (e.g. a building and campus with the same name) works fine.
• Also improves error handling/logging.

To Do

• Explanation of Change(s)
• Added change log fragment(s)
• Unit, Integration Tests

[DistantVoyager]

@cdtomkins take a look at my suggestions. I have not tested, but please do and see if that (or something similar) will handle n number of location_parents from a CSV

[github-actions]

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
nautobot_device_onboarding
jobs.py					453, 468-470
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action

[cdtomkins]

@Dav-C @scetron Last week we discussed two possibilities for this one:

1. add unit tests and push forward with this as-is, then raise a separate, new issue to standardise the column names to dunder notation
2. standardise the column names to dunder notation as part of this PR

Personally I think (1) is the right path and align it with next major version. Thoughts appreciated. If you agree (1) I'll get the UTs finished up.

[PiotrOrman]

Hello,
When it will be public available ? Looks like it is going to cover Bug #399 raised by me. Do you need any help with testing ?

[cdtomkins]

Hello, When it will be public available ? Looks like it is going to cover Bug #399 raised by me. Do you need any help with testing ?

Yes I agree it should close #399. This patch is working fine, I just need to write some tests and then I should be able to merge. I hope to do so this week.

If you have a development environment, feel free to test there in the meantime.

[cdtomkins]

@Dav-C made a good recommendation to make this more performant by avoiding repeat lookups where a row's location ancestry has already been checked by adding a cache. Will action this before merge.