Fix AdvancedWebServer.ino uptime conversion

[cydanil]

Description of Change

This PR resolves an insignificant bug in the AdvancedWebServer.ino example, where the uptime is converted from seconds to hours, minutes, seconds format.
The changes do not affect the overall sketch nor its intended usage.

Prior to the changes, the reported uptime would be incorrectly going over 60 seconds a minute, and minutes would increase incorrectly.
For examples:

0:0:59
0:1:0

0:1:60
0:1:61

0:1:118
0:1:119
0:2:120
0:2:121

After these changes, minutes and seconds update as expected.

Tests scenarios

I have tested my Pull Request on Arduino-esp32 core v2.0.14 with ESP32 on an ESP32-Ethernet-Kit_A_V1.2 development board.

Thank you for your time,
Cyril 🙂

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "Fix build error": 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,test 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).

👋 Hello cydanil, 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 497830e

[me-no-dev]

missing ; at the end of the line

[me-no-dev]

BTW looking at the code below, both min and sec are % 60, which makes the new code in effect the same as the old one. Also the old one looks OK, so I wonder how come you got the wrong values?