Wifi async scan example and fix

[SuGlider]

Description of Change

This PR adds a new example for using WiFi Scan in Asynchronous mode.
It also fixes a problem with Scan Status return related to Scan Timeout.

Tests scenarios

Used the example with ESP32 and ESP32-C3.

Related links

issue #8952 may benefit from it.

[SuGlider]

This PR depends on #8982 due to a documentation CI error.

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Create .skip.esp32h2": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Create README.md": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Create WiFiScanAsync.ino": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Update README.md - adds C6": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "Update wifi.rst with new example": summary looks empty type/action looks empty the commit message "avoid timeout with Async Mode": summary looks empty type/action looks empty Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).
⚠️	Please consider squashing your 7 commits (simplifying branch history).

👋 Hello SuGlider, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against a1cfe58