[chore] Add a smoke test that is run as part of the scorecard tests V2

[andreasgerstmayr]

This is a continuation of PR #1252, rebased on latest main branch with the following updates:

• a new service account is created to run the scorecard tests (the default service account doesn't have permissions to perform the tasks of the kuttl tests, for example creating a new CR)
• the e2e cluster environment is set up before running the tests (the kuttl tests require the operator to be installed)

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: andreasgerstmayr / name: Andreas Gerstmayr (a74867c)

[pavolloffay]

How is the label used?

Should we use a more descriptive label?

[andreasgerstmayr]

Afaics it's just printed in the scorecard output, i.e.

    {
      "kind": "Test",
      "apiVersion": "scorecard.operatorframework.io/v1alpha3",
      "spec": {
        "image": "quay.io/operator-framework/scorecard-test-kuttl:v2.0.0",
        "labels": {
          "suite": "kuttlsuite",
          "test": "kuttltest1"
        },
        "storage": {
          "spec": {
            "mountPath": {}
          }
        }
      },
      "status": {
        "results": [
          {
            "name": "smoketest",
            "state": "pass",
            "creationTimestamp": null
          }
        ]
      }
    }

Currently all tests of this kuttl suite (bundle/tests/scorecard/kuttl) are run in parallel as a single scorecard test. If we decide later that we want to split kuttl tests in multiple scorecard tests, we should add a descriptive label to each. For now I think it's fine, as in other projects we also run all kuttl tests in the same kuttl suite (i.e. tests/e2e is a single kuttle suite).

[linux-foundation-easycla]

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

• ✅ login: andreasgerstmayr / name: Andreas Gerstmayr (0a544af, ee1f877, f0661f2)

[pavolloffay]

/easycla

[pavolloffay]

Why is it using a custom image?

[andreasgerstmayr]

It needs kuttl 0.15.0 because this kuttl version contains fixes regarding test cleanup, which is especially important if we run the tests in a single namespace.
Once operator-framework/operator-sdk#6401 is merged and released, we can switch to the official one again.

[pavolloffay]

Why is it using a custom image? Could we switch to the upstream one?

[andreasgerstmayr]

Same as above (this file is auto-generated from the file above).