Add Step info to @BeforeStep and @AfterStep hooks

[glaciousm]

Summary

This PR implements the feature requested in #1805 - allowing @BeforeStep and @AfterStep hooks to receive step information (keyword, text, line number) alongside the existing Scenario parameter.

New API:

@BeforeStep
public void beforeStep(Scenario scenario, Step step) {
    System.out.println("Running: " + step.getKeyword() + step.getText());
    System.out.println("At line: " + step.getLine());
}

@AfterStep  
public void afterStep(Scenario scenario, Step step) {
    if (scenario.isFailed()) {
        System.out.println("Failed step: " + step.getText());
    }
}

Changes

• Add new io.cucumber.java.Step interface exposing step details
• Add internal StepInfo wrapper class implementing the Step interface
• Extend HookDefinition with execute(state, step) default method
• Update JavaHookDefinition to support 2-parameter step hooks
• Pass step info through HookTestStep execution chain

Backward Compatibility

• Existing hooks with 0 or 1 parameter continue to work unchanged
• No breaking changes to the public API

Test plan

• All existing cucumber-core tests pass (665 tests)
• All existing cucumber-java tests pass (115 tests)
• Tested with a real Selenium/Cucumber project

Closes #1805

[mpkorstanje]

Overall this looks like a decent approach.

• The HookTestStep::run method is duplicated. I don't think that this is necessary. In TestStep::executeStep it should be possible to pass the step argument and propagate it down to HookDefinition::execute by adding an extra argument to StepDefinitionMatch::runStep. If it goes unused in other places, that is okay.

• io.cucumber.plugin.event.StepArgument shouldn't be visible to users but I don't know what to request that yet.

[mpkorstanje]

This code doesn't have to be duplicated. The StepDefinitionMatch interface is an package private interface. It is okay t o add parameter too it.

[mpkorstanje]

Don't worry about the Semver check btw.

[glaciousm]

pushed changes based on the comments, if you could re-review

[mpkorstanje]

Please review your own code before asking me for a review.

1. These changes came in incredibly fast.
2. The changes are as requested in letter, but not in spirit. I find that I'm writing the same comments as I did in my previous review, but for exactly one level higher in the call chain.
3. There is a rather obvious blunder in the code that regular refactoring tools wouldn't produce.

Normally I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but I do see several LLM based projects on your profile so I am skeptical that you've done the necessary work to create a correct pull request.

[glaciousm]

I will go through all my changes, one by one, apologies