change: [M3 7383] - Replace hardcoded prices for LKE HA with data from `lke/types` API endpoint

[carrillo-erik]

Description 📝

The changes in this PR replace the hardcoded price values for LKE High Availability with the data from the lke/types endpoint.

Changes 🔄

List any change relevant to the reviewer.

• Removal of the LK_HA_PRICE const.
• Replacement of outstanding default imports with named imports.
• ClusterDetail is renamed to KubernetesClusterDetail.
• New kubernetesTypeFactory type factory and corresponding tests.
• New DC Specific Pricing queries for Kubernetes (LKE HA).
• New lke/types API endpoint.

How to test 🧪

• Go through the normal Kubernetes Create workflow.

Verification steps

(How to verify changes)

• Verify that existing LKE create workflows behave as expected.
• Verify that switching between different regions changes the price. In particular Jakarta, ID (id-cgk) and Sao Paulo, BR (br-gru) should update the price for LKE HA from $60.00 to $72.00 and $84.00, respectively.
• Verify that the total price reflects the LKE HA selection based on the appropriate region.
• Verify there are no visual regressions as a result of these changes.

As an Author I have considered 🤔

Check all that apply

• [x] 👀 Doing a self review
• [ ] ❔ Our contribution guidelines
• [ ] 🤏 Splitting feature into small PRs
• [x] ➕ Adding a changeset
• [x] 🧪 Providing/Improving test coverage
• [ ] 🔐 Removing all sensitive information from the code and PR description
• [ ] 🚩 Using a feature flag to protect the release
• [x] 👣 Providing comprehensive reproduction steps
• [ ] 📑 Providing or updating our documentation
• [ ] 🕛 Scheduling a pair reviewing session
• [ ] 📱 Providing mobile support
• [ ] ♿ Providing accessibility support

[github-actions[bot]]

Coverage Report: ✅
Base Coverage: 82.85%
Current Coverage: 83.08%

[carrillo-erik]

Please Note:

Aside from resolving the merge conflicts, there's some optimizations that need to be implemented. There were additional use cases discovered and I'm waiting for input from UX on how to address them. For now, I've labeled this PR as Work in Progress.

[abailly-akamai]

~~@carrillo-erik can we resolve the conflict before review?~~

nevermind, just saw the comment above. Maybe back into draft until ready to be reviewed?

[abailly-akamai]

@carrillo-erik i believe the e2e failure also is relevant here, you do want to fix it before merging

[carrillo-erik]

@abailly-akamai @mjac0bs There's been a few updates to this PR and it continually got bigger (although the changes were minimal). I'm more than happy to schedule a pair review session before merging this PR.

[abailly-akamai]

@carrillo-erik you have to fix conflicts and address feedback before this gets out of date again

[carrillo-erik]

@carrillo-erik you have to fix conflicts and address feedback before this gets out of date again

@abailly-akamai I've pushed my recent changes addressing the feedback.