fix(gitlab): Modify gitlab ci resource id

[Eliran-Turgeman]

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

Description

• Fixed SuspectCurlInScript check not having lines and code block via definitions_raw object
• Changed resource id to better reflect the resource, for example:
  *.rules.*.rules.CKV_GITLABCI_2[7:9] -> planOnlySubset
  For the following source code:

planOnlySubset:
  script: echo "This job creates double pipelines!"
  rules:
    - changes:
        - $DOCKERFILES_DIR/*
    - if: $CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE == "push"
    - if: $CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE == "merge_request_event"

...

• Added matching resource ids for images in gitlab ci

Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change.

Fixes # (issue)

New/Edited policies (Delete if not relevant)

Description

Include a description of what makes it a violation and any relevant external links.

Fix

How does someone fix the issue in code and/or in runtime?

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests that prove my feature, policy, or fix is effective and works
• New and existing tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[gruebel]

nice work, left a couple of comments

[gruebel]

any reason, why limit it to just GitLab CI?

[Eliran-Turgeman]

I wasn't sure if that's needed for all frameworks, I added it because some gitlab ci check names were missing the resource lines and code blocks and I needed the definitions to resolve them.
I think we should gradually apply it to more frameworks as we find issues with their resource ids, WDYT?

[gruebel]

gotcha, gotcha. let's leave it for now as it is. if we need it for something else, then lets add it for all check types

[Eliran-Turgeman]

@gruebel Addressed all your comments, thanks! 😄

[gruebel]

last one 😄