feat: add ability to control semantics for Freight being made available to a Stage

[aidan-canva]

Closes #3207

Adds concept of 'availability strategy' to a Freight Request to allow users to control the semantics used to determine if (verified) Freight is made available to a stage.

Default behavior is to make a Freight available if 'any' of the upstream Stages have verified it. This is backwards compatible with the current state of behavior. Users can explicitly configure UpstreamAny (default behavior) or UpstreamAll (enums) as possible values. UpstreamAll will only make Freight available if all of the configure upstream Stages have verified it. An enum was chosen over a boolean as it is possible other option could be implemented in the future (ie, promote when a majority of upstream have verified the Freight).

This condition is applied on-top of existing Freight Request controls, such as the recently added minimum bake time control. For that reason, perhaps its better suited to sit closer to FreightSources where the RequiredSoakTime is configured.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for docs-kargo-io ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	5602db2
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docs-kargo-io/deploys/67ac7afee8319800088f5a90
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-3257.docs.kargo.io
📱 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 site configuration.

[aidan-canva]

FYI @krancour

[krancour]

@aidan-canva sorry for the delay. At a glance, this looks fantastic. I'll dig deeper on Monday and maybe have @hiddeco look as well.

[hiddeco]

For that reason, perhaps its better suited to sit closer to FreightSources where the RequiredSoakTime is configured.

After reviewing your code, I think this is a good observation, and I would feel more comfortable with it sitting at the same level as RequiredSoakTime. This would make the setting count for the list item (just like the soak time requirement), which I feel is better.

Other than this and my question/suggestion below, this looks like a straight forward implementation and a job well done. 🌷

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 52.56%. Comparing base (d1441f1) to head (df648b4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3257      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   52.50%   52.56%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         291      291              
  Lines       26625    26659      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits        13979    14013      +34     
  Misses      11882    11882              
  Partials      764      764              

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

[krancour]

Few comments, but mostly looks very good.

[aidan-canva]

Thanks for the feedback @krancour 👍 I've addressed all of the comments and its ready for another review.

[aidan-canva]

@krancour @hiddeco just a friendly probe - any blockers on getting this merged? I'll get the last DCO commit signed/commits squashed if I can get the go ahead.

[hiddeco]

We are on a company offsite this week, hence the slight delay. If we do not get to it this week, next week we will be back at full capacity.