Refactor validatePictureUrl for better image URL validation

[safiya2610]

Summary
Updated validatePictureUrl to support Google Drive links alongside standard image URLs.

Key Changes
Google Drive Integration: Added validation for /file/d/, open?id=, and uc?id= patterns.
Image Extensions: Maintained support for jpg, png, webp, svg, and gif.
Security: Blocked Base64/Data URIs to prevent large string uploads.
Reliability: Added try...catch with new URL() to handle malformed inputs gracefully.

Test Cases
Pass: Direct image URLs and Google Drive share links.

1. High Compatibility
   Google Drive provides different types of links depending on how a user clicks "Share." By including all three, you ensure the user doesn't get a frustrating "Invalid URL" error just because they copied the link from a different menu:
   /file/d/ID/view: The standard "Share" link most users copy.
   open?id=ID: The older legacy sharing format.
   uc?id=ID: The "Universal Content" link used for direct downloads and embedding.

2. Prevents "False Positives"
   If you simply allowed any URL containing drive.google.com, a user could paste a link to a Google Drive Folder or the Drive Homepage. Your code ensures that only links pointing to individual files are accepted.

Fixes #6986

[safiya2610]

@kishore007k @leecalcote Please review the PR.

[leecalcote]

Let's not callout Google Drive, specifically.

"Data URI" is not user-friendly language either.

We simply need to state that a hyperlink to an image is what is required.

[leecalcote]

What about avif?

[leecalcote]

I don't know that all of this validation is helpful, but is perhaps, more hurtful than anything else.

Do we need validation... at all? If so, the lighter, the better.

[leecalcote]

@safiya2610 why are you not reviewing the other open PR on this topic?

[safiya2610]

Thanks for the feedback, @leecalcote
To make this as 'light' as possible: would you prefer if I remove the file extension and Google Drive logic entirely and only check if the input is a valid URL (starting with http/https)?

[safiya2610]

@safiya2610 why are you not reviewing the other open PR on this topic?

surely I would take care of it.

[l5io]

🚀 Preview for commit c69a476 at: https://694c21c40fcc296b5bee13b3--layer5.netlify.app

[safiya2610]

@leecalcote I’ve updated the validation logic so that all valid URLs are accepted, including Drive and other hosted links. also keep it very simple and light.

[l5io]

🚀 Preview for commit 985cae8 at: https://694c26f687b1ccb24b21826e--layer5.netlify.app

[kishore08-07]

@safiya2610
Thank you for your contribution!
Let's discuss this during the website call today at 6:30 PM IST | 7 AM CT
Add it as an agenda item to the meeting minutes, if you would :)

[safiya2610]

@kishore08-07 @leecalcote Please review it once, So that I can make changes accordingly, As I already make it lighter as said by @leecalcote , Now it will allow drive link, as well as any URL (deployed img also work for this case).

I don't know that all of this validation is helpful, but is perhaps, more hurtful than anything else.

Do we need validation... at all? If so, the lighter, the better.