Fix metadata.csv integration name behavior with overrides

[AAraKKe]

What does this PR do?

Add the option to override the integration name used in the metadata.csv to avoid having unexpected side behavior when accessing the display name.

Motivation

Recently we have updated how we handle the metadata validation when we do not have a manifest file. The manifest was used to access the normalized_display_name by reading the assets.integration.source_type_name. The display_name is defined widely in ddev as this variable and can be overridden by the overrides.display-name option in .ddev/config.toml file.

However, it turns out that when accessing normalized_display_name which is used to validate the integration name in the metadata file, this behavior breaks. Overriding is not supported but that is completely invisible through the Integration API which seems to point out that the normalized_display_name is a normalized version of the display_name.

When updating the display name behavior and metadata validation, three integrations validation are failing in master. Turns out that for these integrations, the display name overridden from the repo overrides is used when rading display_name but it is intentionally left out when reading the normalized_display_name. This is on purpose because the naming in metadata was likely already taken but the name of the integration and the new manifest version was different.

In order to support this snowflake, we are adding here a metadata_integration_name property, which is the property that defines the name of the integration in the metadata file. This, by default, is the display name unless it is overridden by the overrides.validate.metadata.integration table of the conf.toml. This allows supporting these snowflakes without obsfucating the behavior of the normalize_display_name property of the Integration.

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Add the qa/skip-qa label if the PR doesn't need to be tested during QA.
• If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.16%. Comparing base (3458c29) to head (912e16c).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.