PEP 006 outputs api

[bdegeeter]

What does this change

This change adds a hidden argument that enables a GRPC service. This new service is the start of PEP 006 and adds a API allowing access to installation output information. This feature is only intended to be used by the operator and will require additional functional to leverage.

https://github.com/getporter/proposals/blob/main/pep/006-installation-outputs-api.md

This feature is not intended to be used directly via the porter CLI by the end user. An image is created containing a version of the porter cli with a build flag to enable the api-server command. This image is intended to be used by a future kubernetes deployment with the Porter Operator. The regular porter cli build is not built with api-server command.

Notes for the reviewer

An update to go-containerregistry required a change to existing archive integration tests. The change to this library introduces a new field to the index.json in an archive. This required the shasum for the test to be updated.

Documentation will come in as part of additional operator integration work.

Checklist

• Did you write tests?
• Did you write documentation?
• Did you change porter.yaml or a storage document record? Update the corresponding schema file.
• If this is your first pull request, please add your name to the bottom of our Contributors list. Thank you for making Porter better! 🙇‍♀️

Reviewer Checklist

• Comment with /azp run test-porter-release if a magefile or build script was modified
• Comment with /azp run porter-integration if it's a non-trivial PR

[sgettys]

We talked about putting this behind a feature flag, that's probably something we should do initially.

[schristoff]

porter -> Porter (it is the nittiest of nits, but I only included it because I'm going to point out....) -> and <link?> ?

[schristoff]

Is this the same TODO twice or am I not seeing the difference? If it's different then it's my b

[schristoff]

Could we return one of the two here?
If we return error, then I expect for what we're doing here to be something with severity (as in, maybe we should stop if we get an error)
But if it's something we can keep running through, then just returning the bool and handling it in the caller function is probably fine

[schristoff]

Silly question - I may be misreading, feel free to correct. Are we sticking ourselves to a specific version of this? Is there anyway we could tie ourselves to 'latest' if we are, to ensure we don't have to come update this later, or is there a reason we want this specific version?

[schristoff]

pGRPC -> v1alpha1 (to stay consistent with everywhere else?)

[schristoff]

Should we update this name or does it not matter?

[schristoff]

Some comments here would be majorly helpful!

[schristoff]

same comment about versioning here

[schristoff]

It looks like assert.JSONEq isn't dependent on order, is that what this TODO is referencing?

[schristoff]

Leaving my notes for future selves