bump: add arch-specific support

[razvanazamfirei]

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same change?
• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your changes? Here's an example.
• Have you successfully run brew style with your changes locally?
• Have you successfully run brew typecheck with your changes locally?
• Have you successfully run brew tests with your changes locally?

---

This is the bump-specific part of #15611 and a continuation of #15725.

The bump command has been refactored to include architecture-specific livechecks. By simulating different architectures, bump now returns architecture-specific results in a unified structure. This structure is leveraged in the retrieve_and_display_info_and_open_pr method to display livecheck results and pass updated versions to bump-cask-pr.

In addition, an issue with handling duplicate PRs has been addressed. Previously, bump returned Duplicate PRs should not be opened. Use --force to override this error. when duplicate PRs were identified. This wasn't actually implemented. The bump command now passes the --force switch to brew-#{type}-pr when appropriate.

While primarily focusing on the bump command, these changes also impact formulae. I've tried to preserve existing functionality and welcome any feedback on potential areas overlooked.

This will resolve #15167.

I also welcome any feedback in terms of displaying the information. The current format (see below) doesn't look great when the versions get long.

❯ brew bump multiviewer-for-f1
==> multiviewer-for-f1
Current cask version:     arm: 1.24.0,116220388 | intel: 1.24.0,116220919
Latest livecheck version: arm: 1.24.1,117979343 | intel: 1.24.1,117980427
Latest Repology version:  1.24.1
Open pull requests:       none
Closed pull requests:     none

[MikeMcQuaid]

I also welcome any feedback in terms of displaying the information. The current format (see below) doesn't look great when the versions get long.

I think it'd be nice to have ARM and Intel versions on separate lines.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Code makes sense to me! Would be nice to improve version output, as mentioned.

[MikeMcQuaid]

Looks good to me, thanks again @razvanazamfirei!