feat: regex filters for namespace and name

[cmwylie19]

Description

Adds regex for name and namespaces.

Another note: Filter Logic is extremely difficult to grok through now, we need to refactor

TODO

• e2e test
• Extend Unit tests to add cases for regex
• namespaceComplianceValidator to test for regex namespaces

End to End Test: PR

• hello-pepr-regex-name (should fail until ignoredNamespaces are not considered in filters (shouldSkip and filterMatch) #1162 lands)
• hello-pepr-regex-ns-all
• hello-pepr-regex-ns-bounded
• hello-pepr-regex-ns-wrong

Related Issue

Fixes #582

Relates to #

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (security config, docs update, etc)

Checklist before merging

• Unit, Journey, E2E Tests, docs, adr added or updated as needed
• Contributor Guide Steps followed

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.50725% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.91%. Comparing base (6db4b40) to head (c3fa1dd).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/lib/capability.ts	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/lib/filter.ts	94.73%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1156      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.87%   85.91%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines        1126     1193      +67     
  Branches      243      261      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits          967     1025      +58     
- Misses        145      166      +21     
+ Partials       14        2      -12     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/lib/helpers.ts	97.60% <100.00%> (+0.56%)	⬆️
src/lib/types.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/filter.ts	84.41% <94.73%> (+3.38%)	⬆️
src/lib/capability.ts	30.30% <0.00%> (-1.96%)	⬇️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

[btlghrants]

Given our (lengthy) in-person review earlier, your need to move over to an alternate-watcher implementation post-haste, and the fact that we already discussed how a follow-on refactor story will be coming out of the this + what I'm working on currently, this PR is acceptable.