Add --zone argument to launch command

[levkropp]

$     multipass list
No instances found.
$     multipass launch
Launched: frisky-sturgeon in zone zone1
$     multipass launch --zone zone1,zone3
launch failed: Invalid arguments supplied
$     multipass launch --zone zone1,
launch failed: Invalid arguments supplied
$     multipass launch --zone zone
launch failed: Invalid arguments supplied
$     multipass launch --zone zone3
Launched: quiet-lapwing in zone zone3
$     multipass list
Name                    State             IPv4             Image               Zone
frisky-sturgeon         Running           10.127.101.158   Ubuntu 24.04 LTS    zone1(a)
quiet-lapwing           Running           10.127.101.19    Ubuntu 24.04 LTS    zone3(a)

This pull request includes several changes to improve the launch command functionality in the src/client/cli/cmd/launch.cpp file, focusing on code formatting and adding a new --zone option. Additionally, it includes updates to the daemon and tests to support the new functionality.

New --zone option:

• src/client/cli/cmd/launch.cpp: Added a new --zone option to specify the availability zone during the launch command. This includes parsing the new option and setting the zone in the request. [1] [2]
• src/daemon/daemon.cpp: Updated the daemon to handle the new zone information and include it in the response. [1] [2]
• src/rpc/multipass.proto: Added a new zone_name field to the LaunchReply message to communicate the zone information.

Test updates:

• tests/test_cli_client.cpp: Added new tests to verify the functionality of the --zone option, including tests for valid, empty, and nonexistent zone values.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.67568% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 87.46%. Comparing base (badabe0) to head (5c7a9b6).
⚠️ Report is 3188 commits behind head on az-enable-disable-commands.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/client/cli/cmd/launch.cpp	30.76%	9 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                      Coverage Diff                       @@
##           az-enable-disable-commands    #4011      +/-   ##
==============================================================
- Coverage                       87.51%   87.46%   -0.05%     
==============================================================
  Files                             268      268              
  Lines                           15149    15162      +13     
==============================================================
+ Hits                            13258    13262       +4     
- Misses                           1891     1900       +9     

☔ 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.

[andrei-toterman]

Hey, @levkropp! I have just a few small comments. Besides those, I see that some of the changes are just formatting changes to code that you did not touch, perhaps it was formatted automatically. Could you make sure that you only format code that actually changed?

[andrei-toterman]

Much better. But during functional testing I saw some small issues.
If I pass an invalid/unavailable zone to --zone, I get a generic error message launch failed: Invalid arguments supplied. So you'll need to add extra checks for the type of error we get back. The grpc reply should contain the error codes already, you just need to turn them into nice messages. You could add something like

else if (error == LaunchError::INVALID_ZONE)
{
    error_details = fmt::format("Invalid zone name supplied: {}", request.zone());
}
else if (error == LaunchError::ZONE_UNAVAILABLE)
{
    error_details = fmt::format("Unavailable zone name supplied: {}", request.zone());
}

to the existing if-else chain that checks other LaunchError codes.

[andrei-toterman]

Yup, looks good to me now! Thanks, @levkropp!

[ricab]

Hey @levkropp, I still meant to review this - sorry for taking so long. I guess I'll review within #3926 now. Let's try to merge stacked PRs sequentially into the feature branch.