Reformat with biome 2.5.6 and ignore the lru advisory

[janisdombr]

Two CI checks fail on every recently-run pull request against main, and neither is caused by the branch they fail on. Both are one-line-scale fixes.

Description

biome — three files drifted, and nothing on main checks them

.github/workflows/biome.yml runs on: [pull_request] only, so main itself is never formatted-checked. Three files were changed by merges that did not run the formatter:

file	last changed
warpgate-web/src/admin/config/users/AuthPolicyEditor.svelte	55af452, 11 Aug
warpgate-web/src/common/CollapsibleBlock.svelte	ce97046, 12 Aug
warpgate-web/src/common/ConnectionInstructions.svelte	ce97046, 12 Aug

Every pull request opened or updated since then inherits the four errors: formatting in AuthPolicyEditor and ConnectionInstructions, import order in CollapsibleBlock. biome check --write is the whole change; no behaviour is
touched.

cargo-deny — an advisory in a transitive dependency we cannot raise

RUSTSEC-2026-0253, an unsound LruCache::pop in lru 0.16.4. That version is pinned by aws-sdk-s3 1.137.0 and cannot be raised from here: the fix landed in lru 0.18.2, which is a breaking change for a 0.x crate. The other lru in
the tree — 0.18.2, via ratatui-core — is unaffected.

Added to the existing ignore list beside RUSTSEC-2026-0104, which is there for the same reason and the same SDK. Happy to drop this hunk if you would rather wait for an aws-sdk-s3 bump.

Pull requests currently red for these two reasons

#2432, #2429, #2427, #2413, #2397 — every open PR whose checks have run since 12 August. (#2396 and #2387 are green only because their last run predates the drift.)

Verified with the versions the workflows pin

biome 2.5.6, per .github/workflows/biome.yml:

Checked 154 files. No fixes applied.

cargo-deny 0.18.9, per .github/workflows/cargo-deny.yml:

advisories ok, bans ok, licenses ok, sources ok

Worth using the pinned versions rather than whatever is installed locally:
cargo-deny 0.20.2 passes on main without this change, because it treats
the unsound class differently, so confirming against it would prove nothing.

AI Usage

Choose the level of AI involvement for this PR.

• Fully vibe coded
• AI-designed, AI-coded, manually checked
• Human-designed, AI-coded
• Human-designed, human-coded (includes AI autocompletions and boilerplate gen)

_{This is not to block AI contributions but rather to speed up PR review (saves time on trying to deduce the logic behind AI hallucinations).}