Add new Kanister function WaitV2

[PrasadG193]

Change Overview

This PR adds new function WaitV2 improved version of existing Wait function which simplifies the condition definition.
Instead of Jsonpath to fetch K8s object value, we can use go-template syntax which can be validated with kubectl.

e.g To check if the deployment is ready, once can form following go-template which can be validated with kubectl -

$ kubectl get deploy -n kanisterwaittest-b58j2 test-deployment-tntfb -o go-template='{{ $available := false }}{{ range $condition := $.status.conditions }}{{ if and (eq .type "Available") (eq .status "True")  }}{{ $available = true }}{{ end }}{{ end }}{{ $available }}' 
true

The same go-template can be used in the WaitV2 function arg to define condition

apiVersion: cr.kanister.io/v1alpha1
kind: Blueprint
metadata:
  name: wait-blueprint
actions:
  backup:
    phases:
    - func: WaitV2
      name: waitForRestoreReady
      args:
        timeout: 5m
        conditions:
          anyOf:
          - condition: '{{ $available := false }}{{ range $condition := $.status.conditions }}{{ if and (eq .type "Available") (eq .status "True") }}{{ $available = true }}{{ end }}{{ end }}{{ $available }}'
            objectReference:
              apiVersion: "v1"
              group: "apps"
              name: "{{ .Object.metadata.name }}"
              namespace: "{{ .Object.metadata.namespace }}"
              resource: "deployments"

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• 🚧 Work in Progress
• 🌈 Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• 🐹 Trivial/Minor
• 🐛 Bugfix
• 🌻 Feature
• 🗺️ Documentation
• 🤖 Test

Issues

• fixes Wait function condition arg should only use go-template an not a mix of jsonpath and go-template  #1583

Test Plan

• 💪 Manual

• ⚡ Unit test

• 💚 E2E

• Added unit tests

• Manually validated the BP mentioned in the PR description on a deployment

[github-actions]

Thanks for submitting this pull request 🎉. The team will review it soon and get back to you.

If you haven't already, please take a moment to review our project contributing guideline and Code of Conduct document.

[PrasadG193]

[michaelcourcy]

LGTM, I have a small question in the code but I think I auto answer it, otherwise thanks for asking me the review the unit test you wrote were very interesting, the documentation is also very good.

[PrasadG193]

Rebased and fixed conflicts. @pavannd1 could you please take a look?