Update settings validation to mutex condition filters

[thetaurean]

User Story

As a user configuring ReportStream I want validation to catch invalid configurations that are syntactically correct so that I can avoid misconfiguring ReportStream components intentionally or otherwise.

Description/Use Case

The conditionFilter supersedes the mappedConditionFilter in specificity; therefore these filters are mutually exclusive to avoid compound condition filters leading to unexpected filtering outcomes. This is checked when evaluating the filters, but we should also prevent them from being configured.

Risks/Impacts/Considerations

We may want to reconsider if there is ever a valid scenario for having both filters configured.

Dev Notes

• May be possible at the json schema level
• Very doable at the konform level
  • something like: addConstraint("must be mutually exclusive", test = { receiver -> !(receiver.mappedConditionFilter.isNotEmpty() && receiver.conditionFilter.isNotEmpty()) })

Acceptance Criteria

• Settings validation ensures no receivers have both a mappedConditionFilter and a conditionFilter

[Andrey-Glazkv]

Hey team! Please add your planning poker estimate with Zenhub @adegolier @arnejduranovic @brick-green @david-navapbc @jack-h-wang @jalbinson @JFisk42 @mkalish @thetaurean