🐛 Fix: installed bundle provider no longer requires catalog

[joelanford]

The installed bundle provider, which is necessary for safely handling package upgrades, was too strict. It required the currently installed bundle to exist in the catalog in order to "find" the installed bundle.

This is problematic in several situations:

• If a user receives a catalog update that no longer contains their installed bundle (perhaps its was removed from the catalog for security or policy reasons)
• If a user is trying to transition to a different catalog that provides that package
• If a bundle was directly installed, and the user is trying to have a catalog-backed ClusterExtension adopt it.

This change simply returns the name and version of the installed bundle, and makes some minor changes in the successors functions to handle the simplified installed bundle metadata.

Description

Reviewer Checklist

• [ ] API Go Documentation
• [ ] Tests: Unit Tests (and E2E Tests, if appropriate)
• [ ] Comprehensive Commit Messages
• [ ] Links to related GitHub Issue(s)

[netlify[bot]]

✅ Deploy Preview for olmv1 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c250d2d36de34841cdc9461841dc5b4cff9b86d8
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/olmv1/deploys/6664dd349a680400087d01bd
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-916--olmv1.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 73.57%. Comparing base (35e5087) to head (c250d2d). Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #916 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 73.54% 73.57% +0.02% ========================================== Files 18 18 Lines 1221 1211 -10 ========================================== - Hits 898 891 -7 + Misses 248 246 -2 + Partials 75 74 -1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/operator-framework/operator-controller/pull/916/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=operator-framework) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [e2e](https://app.codecov.io/gh/operator-framework/operator-controller/pull/916/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=operator-framework) | `59.84% <75.00%> (-0.35%)` | :arrow_down: | | [unit](https://app.codecov.io/gh/operator-framework/operator-controller/pull/916/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=operator-framework) | `48.63% <70.83%> (+0.39%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=operator-framework#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

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

[trgeiger]

Sounds like a great change, nicely simplifies some sections of code. LGTM after a quick look, but can look more closely later