Process include/exclude from policy source

[lcarva]

https://issues.redhat.com/browse/HACBS-2428

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1026 (e291d15) into main (818fe8b) will increase coverage by 5.86%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1026      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.33%   85.19%   +5.86%     
==========================================
  Files          58       66       +8     
  Lines        4969     5330     +361     
==========================================
+ Hits         3942     4541     +599     
+ Misses       1027      789     -238     

Flag	Coverage Δ
acceptance	69.00% <85.71%> (?)
generative	52.34% <ø> (ø)
integration	62.59% <ø> (ø)
unit	71.21% <96.29%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files Changed	Coverage
...ation_snapshot_image/application_snapshot_image.go	100.00%
...nternal/evaluation_target/definition/definition.go	100.00%
internal/evaluator/conftest_evaluator.go	100.00%

[lcarva]

I think this is ok for now, but I want us to reconsider this function signature. It seems redundant to pass in both the Policy and the PolicySource since the PolicySource is within the Policy. This is done, of course, so the evaluator knows which source group to use. I don't think the abstraction is quite right here.

We may want to consider this function only taking these parameters:

• ctx context.Context obviously
• src *ecc.Source. This should include the SourceConfig and enough information to build []source.PolicySource.
• effectiveTime time.Time. This function doesn't need a whole Policy, just the effective time.

There's a wrinkle with this though. We still need something to combine the config from ecc.Source with the "global" config Policy.Spec().Configuration. That might be better off done prior to calling NewConftestEvaluator though which would make this a non-issue.

Anyways, this is somewhat subjective so I didn't want to include in this PR. If there's some agreement here, I will make a follow up PR to do so.

[zregvart]

👍 to refactor the signature here, perhaps something as simple as this could work?

// NewConftestEvaluator create a Evaluator implemented via Conftest to evaluate the n-th policy source
func NewConftestEvaluator(ctx context.Context, p policy.Policy, n int) (Evaluator, error) {

[zregvart]

Or even:

// NewConftestEvaluators create a slice of Evaluator implementations via Conftest
func NewConftestEvaluators(ctx context.Context, p policy.Policy) ([]Evaluator, error) {