refactor: patch with context

[MiahaCybersec]

Closes #723

This PR primarily addresses the untestability of the core patch function within Copa. By breaking the code into smaller blocks, the core functionality of Copa can more easily be tested and extended in the future, and bugs should be easier to find.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 31.85185% with 92 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 48.76%. Comparing base (74381d3) to head (5edc28a).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/patch/patch.go	31.85%	92 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #732      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   46.98%   48.76%   +1.78%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines        2205     2233      +28     
==========================================
+ Hits         1036     1089      +53     
+ Misses       1111     1084      -27     
- Partials       58       60       +2     

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

[RobertKielty]

@MiahaCybersec I have submitted some review comments on the tests and code.

This is good work that will make it easier for the Copa project to on-board new contributors, well done!

My requested changes are largely around improving the story telling around how copa works which will benefit both early adopting end-users and new contributors.

I have one question on the TrivyOpts and why that include non-trivy related fields (there's a bk client in there)

The most important thing to do with work like this is to test it extensively and ensure that no behaviour has changed as a result of the submitted changes.

[ashnamehrotra]

LGTM, will wait to merge. @MiahaCybersec @RobertKielty and I discussed adding canary testing before merging large changes.

[MiahaCybersec]

Changing PR to draft until it gets further review 👍

[MiahaCybersec]

Any updates on internal testing for this refactoring PR?

[ashnamehrotra]

@MiahaCybersec we won't be prioritizing a specific internal testing pipeline for this right now. I think if we want to rebase this with new changes for now, the integration tests should be good to test this.

[MiahaCybersec]

This PR passes all tests, except for the 4 that are currently failing due to issue #877. Otherwise, it is functionally ready for review by maintainers.