feat: introduce flag validate_user_defined_fields

[Vlad-Bukatin]

closes: #331

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.67593% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.84%. Comparing base (b8cb424) to head (096cff4).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
crates/hotfix-message/src/builder.rs	93.58%	20 Missing ⚠️
crates/hotfix/src/session.rs	83.33%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #352      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.72%   91.84%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          94       94              
  Lines       10038    10423     +385     
==========================================
+ Hits         9207     9573     +366     
- Misses        831      850      +19     

Flag	Coverage Δ
core	91.75% <94.67%> (+0.12%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[davidsteiner]

@Vlad-Bukatin sorry, I'll get to this as soon as I can. I just have quite a lot going on, and this change is a bit larger so I want to give it a proper read.

[davidsteiner]

The general direction looks good to me. My only functional concern is how we check the parent groups - left a comment on that.

Also, we're not too strict on test coverage, but I feel like builder.rs has a few interesting branches which aren't covered by any tests. It would be great to add some coverage for those.

Apologies for the very slow review.

[Vlad-Bukatin]

@davidsteiner Thanks for the review! No worries at all about the delay - I've been quite busy on my end as well.
I'll look into your comment regarding the parent groups logic and update that. I will also add some test coverage (was planning for some time... but didn't have a chance to look into it).

Hopefully I would be able to do it next week

[Vlad-Bukatin]

@davidsteiner took me some time, but I think it is ready

[davidsteiner]

@Vlad-Bukatin apart from that minor comment, this looks good to me and an improvement over the old implementation in many ways.

Once you rename the config builder, let's merge it in. If there are any edge cases remaining, we can fix those in follow ups. Thanks!