Refactor way of working with RQ meta

[Marishka17]

Motivation and context

This PR changes the way we work with RQ meta. The previous implementation tried to standardize the fields saved in the meta and how to access them, however, we had to remember the structure of nested objects. This approach explicitly defines the structure of the meta being used.
Extracted from #9075
Partially depends on #9077

How has this been tested?

Checklist

• I submit my changes into the develop branch
• I have created a changelog fragment
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• I have added tests to cover my changes
• I have linked related issues (see GitHub docs)

License

• I submit my code changes under the same MIT License that covers the project.
  Feel free to contact the maintainers if that's a concern.

[Marishka17]

/check

[github-actions]

❌ Some checks failed
📄 See logs here

[Marishka17]

/check

[github-actions]

❌ Some checks failed
📄 See logs here

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
3 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.4% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.66667% with 55 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.98%. Comparing base (fec040d) to head (3b9aefc).
Report is 8 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #9082      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    73.75%   73.98%   +0.23%     
===========================================
  Files          428      429       +1     
  Lines        44514    44699     +185     
  Branches      3881     3881              
===========================================
+ Hits         32830    33070     +240     
+ Misses       11684    11629      -55     

Components	Coverage Δ
cvat-ui	77.45% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
cvat-server	71.14% <81.66%> (+0.46%)	⬆️