Use Matrix Project Plugin in Security914Test, not Credentials Plugin

Fixes issue:

• Security914Test fails due to recent credentials plugin changes #26088

The user interface update to the Credentials plugin in pull request:

• Remove breadcrumb context menu credentials-plugin#990

removed the image that this test used for its initial configuration.

The change was released in Credentials plugin:

• https://github.com/jenkinsci/credentials-plugin/releases/tag/1460.v48765a_c7d849

The new release of the Credentials plugin was included in Jenkins core 2.545 with pull request:

• Update dependency org.jenkins-ci.plugins:credentials to v1460 #26046

This change switches from the Credentials plugin to the Matrix Project plugin as the base for the test. The assumption is that user interface changes are less likely to the Matrix Project plugin.

Testing done

• Confirmed that the tests fail on Windows without this change
• Confirmed that the tests pass on Windows with this change

Test also passes on Linux, but I did not want to change the platform assumption for the test.

Proposed changelog entries

• N/A

Proposed changelog category

/label skip-changelog

Proposed upgrade guidelines

N/A

Submitter checklist

• The issue, if it exists, is well-described.
• The changelog entries and upgrade guidelines are appropriate for the audience affected by the change (users or developers, depending on the change) and are in the imperative mood (see examples). Fill in the Proposed upgrade guidelines section only if there are breaking changes or changes that may require extra steps from users during upgrade.
• There is automated testing or an explanation as to why this change has no tests.
• New public classes, fields, and methods are annotated with @Restricted or have @since TODO Javadocs, as appropriate.
• New deprecations are annotated with @Deprecated(since = "TODO") or @Deprecated(forRemoval = true, since = "TODO"), if applicable.
• UI changes do not introduce regressions when enforcing the current default rules of Content Security Policy Plugin. In particular, new or substantially changed JavaScript is not defined inline and does not call eval to ease future introduction of Content Security Policy (CSP) directives (see documentation).
• For dependency updates, there are links to external changelogs and, if possible, full differentials.
• For new APIs and extension points, there is a link to at least one consumer.

Desired reviewers

@Wadeck

Before the changes are marked as ready-for-merge:

Maintainer checklist

• There are at least two (2) approvals for the pull request and no outstanding requests for change.
• Conversations in the pull request are over, or it is explicit that a reviewer is not blocking the change.
• Changelog entries in the pull request title and/or Proposed changelog entries are accurate, human-readable, and in the imperative mood.
• Proper changelog labels are set so that the changelog can be generated automatically.
• If the change needs additional upgrade steps from users, the upgrade-guide-needed label is set and there is a Proposed upgrade guidelines section in the pull request title (see example).
• If it would make sense to backport the change to LTS, be a Bug or Improvement, and either the issue or pull request must be labeled as lts-candidate to be considered.