Add support for post-resolution policies

[lquerel]

With this PR, it is now possible to define policies to validate a resolved semconv registry (the previous version of Weaver was only supporting pre-resolution policies).

As before, all the *.rego files are imported into the policy engine. The package names are used to identify groups of rules to apply either before or after the resolution process (package before_resolution vs package after_resolution). It is valid to define multiple policy files with the same package name. In this case, the rules defined in these files will be combined and evaluated together. This option can be used to logically split the rules per topic or domain of control.

Note: The definition of policies comparing two versions of the resolved semconv will be added in a future PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 19.14894% with 38 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.5%. Comparing base (183fdeb) to head (cfc4f25).

❗ Current head cfc4f25 differs from pull request most recent head c94c786

Please upload reports for the commit c94c786 to get more accurate results.

Files	Patch %	Lines
crates/weaver_common/src/diagnostic.rs	0.0%	17 Missing ⚠️
crates/weaver_checker/src/lib.rs	39.1%	14 Missing ⚠️
crates/weaver_semconv/src/path.rs	0.0%	7 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main    #214     +/-   ##
=======================================
- Coverage   74.5%   73.5%   -1.0%     
=======================================
  Files         44      45      +1     
  Lines       2938    2983     +45     
=======================================
+ Hits        2189    2194      +5     
- Misses       749     789     +40     

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

[jsuereth]

Just minor nits and wording concerns.

[jsuereth]

I like these additions. Will need to figure out if we have the right set of combinators here.

[jsuereth]

One other comment, code coverage is pretty poor here. We need to figure out negative tests where we expect failures and diagnostic messages to print.

[lquerel]

One other comment, code coverage is pretty poor here. We need to figure out negative tests where we expect failures and diagnostic messages to print.

I improved the comments, but regarding the tests, it's not easy to add more from my iPad. The overall coverage is still greater than 70%, so I'm going to merge this PR. I will create a GitHub issue to address this in a future PR once I'm back.