NASA-PDS/validate#1241: patch to use local file instead of attempting to download URL

[al-niessner]

🗒️ Summary

Use local file if protocol is of type file.

⚙️ Test Data and/or Report

Running against very large GEO product off line. Also, validate unit tests will need to work on PR NASA-PDS/validate# once a new jparser snapshot is released. Works locally using latest code as a precursor that it should be just fine.

♻️ Related Issues

NASA-PDS/validate#1241

🤓 Reviewer Checklist

Reviewers: Please verify the following before approving this pull request.

Security & Quality

• SonarCloud: Confirmed no new High or Critical security findings.
• Secrets Detection: Verified that the Secrets Detection scan passed and no sensitive information (keys, tokens, PII) is exposed.
• Code Quality: Code follows organization style guidelines and best practices for the specific language (e.g., PEP 8, Google Java Style).

Testing & Validation

• Test Accuracy: Verified that test data is accurate, representative of real-world PDS4 scenarios, and sufficient for the logic being tested.
• Coverage: Automated tests cover new logic and edge cases.
• Local Verification: (If applicable) Successfully built and ran the changes in a local or staging environment.

Documentation

• Documentation: README, Wiki, or inline documentation (Sphinx, Javadoc, Docstrings) have been updated to reflect these changes.

Maintenance

• Issue Traceability: The PR is linked to a valid GitHub Issue or Jira Ticket.
• Backward Compatibility: Confirmed that these changes do not break existing downstream dependencies or API contracts (or that breaking changes are clearly documented).

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[al-niessner]

@jordanpadams @tloubrieu-jpl

Please build and release this snapshot. Once done let me know and I will update the validate stuff to make sure that those tests complete successfully as well. Although it appears to have been run here as well so we should be in good shape.

Also,, there is something unstable in your testing of this repo. I had to rerun 17 because it failed the first time. No code changes, just re-run.

[nutjob4life]

Reviewer checklist: ✓
Code delta: ✓
GitHub checks: ✓
Local test suite: ✓
Approval: ✅
Local details:

[INFO] Tests run: 673, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0
[INFO] 
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] BUILD SUCCESS