URO-352 Fix checkbox inputs not actually getting a default value set when it should

[briehl]

Description of PR purpose/changes

A little case that occurs in the following combined conditions:

1. We're making a bulk import cell
2. Using a import spec file or DTS manifest
3. That importer spec / manifest has a bad value for a checkbox input field
4. The user doesn't click on the little 'x' in the warning / ignores it all together.

What this will do is keep the incorrect value and pass it along to the app, potentially causing all manner of chaos (or minor headaches).

The warning says that the checkbox value being set is the default. While that happens visually, it doesn't actually affect the data model until the user clicks the little 'x' to close the warning.

This forces the data model to set the value to the default on input widget load.

Jira Ticket / Issue

Related Jira ticket: https://kbase-jira.atlassian.net/browse/URO-352

• Added the Jira Ticket to the title of the PR

Testing Instructions

• Details for how to test the PR:

• Tests pass locally and in GitHub Actions
• Changes available by spinning up a local narrative and navigating to X to see Y

Dev Checklist:

• My code follows the guidelines at https://sites.google.com/lbl.gov/trussresources/home?authuser=0
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• (JavaScript) I have run Prettier and ESLint on changed code manually or with a git precommit hook
• (Python) I have run Ruff format and check on changed Python code manually or with a git precommit hook
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Updating Version and Release Notes (if applicable)

• Version has been bumped for each release
• Release notes have been updated for each release (and during the merge of feature branches)

[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

[briehl]

Apparently, according to the tests, this was by design. That feels like a mistake - if that box is checked, it should send values as though it's checked.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 25.89%. Comparing base (a386eed) to head (740ecd8).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3698      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    25.94%   25.89%   -0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          461      461              
  Lines        46662    46663       +1     
===========================================
- Hits         12106    12084      -22     
- Misses       34556    34579      +23     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...base/js/widgets/appWidgets2/input/checkboxInput.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5935fba...740ecd8. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.