Added support for binding storage credentials and external locations to specific workspaces

[nkvuong]

Changes

• Renamed databricks_catalog_workspace_binding to databricks_workspace_binding
• Added support to set ISOLATION_MODE for databricks_external_location and databricks_storage_credential
• Added support for 2 additional securable_type: external-location and storage-credential

Tests

• [x] make test run locally
• [x] relevant change in docs/ folder
• [x] covered with integration tests in internal/acceptance
• [x] relevant acceptance tests are passing
• [x] using Go SDK

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 86.71329% with 19 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.65%. Comparing base (d7343a5) to head (6163c7e).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3678      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.60%   81.65%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         196      198       +2     
  Lines       19741    19729      -12     
==========================================
+ Hits        16109    16110       +1     
+ Misses       2672     2659      -13     
  Partials      960      960              

Files	Coverage Δ
catalog/resource_catalog.go	76.57% <100.00%> (+5.04%)	:arrow_up:
catalog/resource_catalog_workspace_binding.go	100.00% <100.00%> (+14.15%)	:arrow_up:
catalog/resource_external_location.go	78.26% <100.00%> (ø)
catalog/utils.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
provider/provider.go	93.99% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	:arrow_up:
catalog/resource_storage_credential.go	61.01% <75.00%> (ø)
catalog/bindings/bindings.go	87.50% <87.50%> (ø)
catalog/resource_workspace_binding.go	85.18% <85.18%> (ø)

[nkvuong]

integration tests passed. failed tests are unrelated

[nkvuong]

Thanks @nkvuong. Overall looks good, but I'm wondering if it's possible to break this PR into several smaller PRs to increase our confidence?

I see that you are doing some refactoring by extracting common logic out. Can we separate that as the first step? Then we do the migration?

Added 3 separate PRs for refactor, renaming of resource & struct updates

• #3702
• #3703
• #3704

Will rebase this once those are merged