feat(checker): add checker for Docker (#2059)

[inosmeet]

Closes #2059.

[inosmeet]

So, I don't know too much about how moby and docker got separated or renamed or what but this clearly detects both. Should we also have ("mobyproject", "moby") as part of this checker, or should moby be its own separate checker?

Basically, Docker uses Moby as upstream for the docker product. We could include this as a part of this checker, but other projects use Moby as well. So, IMO, we should make a separate checker.

[inosmeet]

just a reminder. @terriko

[inosmeet]

there is ambiguity while testing locally and github ci/cd: locally: github: nevertheless I'll push commit to see what happens(fork not working)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 81.17%. Comparing base (d6cbe40) to head (d12f90a). Report is 81 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3701      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.41%   81.17%   +5.75%     
==========================================
  Files         808      818      +10     
  Lines       11983    12268     +285     
  Branches     1598     1654      +56     
==========================================
+ Hits         9037     9958     +921     
+ Misses       2593     1893     -700     
- Partials      353      417      +64     

Flag	Coverage Δ
longtests	80.67% <100.00%> (+5.25%)	:arrow_up:
win-longtests	79.00% <100.00%> (?)

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

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[inosmeet]

Hey @terriko, do we want anything else in this one?

[inosmeet]

Hey @terriko! could you review if you find time? it's been open for over 2 months :( Also moby and this. Thanks!

[terriko]

I'm going to update this one to make sure merging the moby checker first isn't going to cause bad test behaviours.