⚠️ update name validation patterns to match Kubernetes as close as possible

[everettraven]

Description

• Updates existing field comments and validations to adhere more closely to Kubernetes naming conventions

• ResolvesUpdate validations for fields referencing the name of something to follow Kubernetes #1149

Reviewer Checklist

• API Go Documentation
• Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• Comprehensive Commit Messages
• Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	b9797ec
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/66d84fbdf2b6050009ef04fa
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1175--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 56.13%. Comparing base (5800c7f) to head (b9797ec).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (5800c7f) and HEAD (b9797ec). Click for more details.

HEAD has 2 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (5800c7f)	HEAD (b9797ec)
unit	2	1
e2e	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## main #1175 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 77.56% 56.13% -21.43% 
===========================================
Files 36 36 Lines 1979 1979 ===========================================
- Hits 1535 1111 -424 - Misses 309 781 +472 + Partials 135 87 -48 

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	0.00% <ø> (-57.66%)	⬇️
unit	56.13% <ø> (ø)

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

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

[joelanford]

Do the before or after changes from this PR align to the validations that happen in opm validate? We need to make sure that package and channel names are fully specified and validated the exact same way in both places.

[everettraven]

As far as I can tell, the validation for the package name does match. There does not appear to be any validation on channel names in opm validate.

IMO we should merge the validation changes here and then add the validation of the channel name to opm validate.

[joelanford]

I think we need to check known catalogs against these proposed validations before we merge so that we have more information to make a decision. We may ultimately decide to implement these validations despite breaking existing content, but we should know before we act.

[everettraven]

Gist that verified this validation works for all channel names in all known catalogs (except for one in the redhat certified operators index that looks like an unintentional channel name): https://gist.github.com/everettraven/4691c8cc6181f28b129f46cceeb602b5