Update request reply types

[Cali0707]

While implementing the request reply control plane, a few changes were needed in the request reply types for the feature to work correctly. This PR has those type changes.

Proposed Changes

• To simplify for v1alpha1, secrets are managed by us - not externally. As such, the secrets field was removed
• Desired and Ready Replicas were added to track trigger statuses between reconciliations
• A label to the broker was added to request reply resources so that the reconciler can find resources associated with the broker
• The timeout string default was switched to be a proper parseable duration
• Broker status was added to the resource status as the broker should be ready before this accepts events

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 52.94118% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 51.56%. Comparing base (54ff928) to head (af5debb).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...g/apis/eventing/v1alpha1/requestreply_lifecycle.go	33.33%	4 Missing ⚠️
.../apis/eventing/v1alpha1/requestreply_validation.go	33.33%	3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8698      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   51.58%   51.56%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         401      401              
  Lines       25431    25446      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        13119    13122       +3     
- Misses      11509    11523      +14     
+ Partials      803      801       -2     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[Cali0707]

/cc @matzew @creydr

[matzew]

Lets make this consistent, and do CamelCase -> RequestReplyConditionBrokerReady

[matzew]

should we add test for invalid TO as well?

[creydr]

/lgtm

[knative-prow]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Cali0707, creydr

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [Cali0707,creydr]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment