feat: Adjust to changes in listener/pkg/v2

[Tomasz-Smelcerz-SAP]

Description

This PR is meant as a prerequisite to #2657 , that is: I think we should merge this PR first.
The #2657 is much more complex and it's not clear if this additional complexity is worth it.
Besides that, the #2657 is doing two things at once: It tries to adapt lifecycle-manager to the latest changes in runtime-watcher/listener (which is necessary) and it refactors the event-handling logic (which is not strictly required to accomplish kyma-project/runtime-watcher#130)
In my opinion these two things should NOT be delivered in a single PR as it makes code review unnecessary hard.

Considering that, in order to follow the good practice: first: make it work, then make it pretty, this PR introduces just the minimal changes required to make lifecycle-manager compatible with recent changes in the runtime-watcher/listener module.

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Switch to runtime-watcher/listener/pkg/v2 types
• Use the latest runtime-watcher:2.0.0 image
• Make necessary configuration changes
• Add simple "AdaptEvents` function for channel conversion purpose.

Related issue(s)
kyma-project/runtime-watcher#130

[c-pius]

LGTM. One question about the watcherEventAdapter. Is it temporary until things are made pretty or going to stay? Should we add the internal/controller pkg to the unit test coverage thresholds?

And I really appreciate your detailed PR descriptions and change summaries. Made it super easy to follow through the preceding changes in runtime-watcher leading up to this PR 👍🏻
CC: @jacekon

[Tomasz-Smelcerz-SAP]

One question about the watcherEventAdapter. Is it temporary until things are made pretty or going to stay? Should we add the internal/controller pkg to the unit test coverage thresholds?

We can do this, yes. But it has 100% now, so it can only get worse over time :)
But seriously - I think it is sort-of temporary and will be replaced by a bigger refactoring like the one introduced in #2657
Feel free to suggest a "better place" (a dedicated package?) for this thing - until the "big refactoring" comes.

[c-pius]

We can do this, yes. But it has 100% now, so it can only get worse over time :)

That's the point of the action 😄

But seriously - I think it is sort-of temporary and will be replaced by a bigger refactoring like the one introduced in #2657
Feel free to suggest a "better place" (a dedicated package?) for this thing - until the "big refactoring" comes.

No it is okay for me already as indicated by my previous approval. Especially now since you mentioned that this will be refactored soon anyway.