🌱 Refactor BundleValidator to a concrete class

[perdasilva]

Description

The current BundleValidator is implemented almost as a framework, its a singleton that always exists in memory, and it feels a bit awkward to me. I was thinking it might be better to have it as a concrete thing that can be instantiated independently and at the point of use, if necessary.

In this PR we move BundleValidator to a concrete struct with the validation functions hanging off that.

I'm wondering whether:

• people agree that a concrete struct might be better in general
• whether I should make the Check* methods private, and
• whether we should just have a single big tabular test that exercises all of the Check* functions, or if its better to test them individually and have a test that checks whether all check functions are being exercised by the Validate method.

Note: the changes are currently implemented under a v2 directory. The final form of this PR would replace the current implementation in validators with this. Maybe even moving it to the top level of the render package.

Reviewer Checklist

• API Go Documentation
• Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• Comprehensive Commit Messages
• Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	8acd651
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/olmv1/deploys/690103d267957c0008220812
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2291--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign thetechnick for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• internal/operator-controller/OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.90110% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.10%. Comparing base (3c2fcb4) to head (8acd651).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ukpak/render/registryv1/validators/v2/validator.go	98.90%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2291      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.38%   72.10%   +0.72%     
==========================================
  Files          90       91       +1     
  Lines        7003     7185     +182     
==========================================
+ Hits         4999     5181     +182     
  Misses       1592     1592              
  Partials      412      412              

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	47.66% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
experimental-e2e	14.59% <ø> (?)
unit	59.88% <98.90%> (+1.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.