Osm 566 use formatted logging for error catalogue errors in the cli

[DOlufemi]

Pull Request Submission

Please check the boxes once done.

The pull request must:

• Reviewer Documentation
  • follow CONTRIBUTING rules
  • be accompanied by a detailed description of the changes
  • contain a risk assessment of the change (Low | Medium | High) with regards to breaking existing functionality. A change e.g. of an underlying language plugin can completely break the functionality for that language, but appearing as only a version change in the dependencies.
  • highlight breaking API if applicable
  • contain a link to the automatic tests that cover the updated functionality.
  • contain testing instructions in case that the reviewer wants to manual verify as well, to add to the manual testing done by the author.
  • link to the link to the PR for the User-facing documentation
• User facing Documentation
  • update any relevant documentation in gitbook by submitting a gitbook PR, and including the PR link here
  • ensure that the message of the final single commit is descriptive and prefixed with either feat: or fix: , others might be used in rare occasions as well, if there is no need to document the changes in the release notes. The changes or fixes should be described in detail in the commit message for the changelog & release notes.
• Testing
  • Changes, removals and additions to functionality must be covered by acceptance / integration tests or smoke tests - either already existing ones, or new ones, created by the author of the PR.

Pull Request Review

All pull requests must undergo a thorough review process before being merged.
The review process of the code PR should include code review, testing, and any necessary feedback or revisions.
Pull request reviews of functionality developed in other teams only review the given documentation and test reports.

Manual testing will not be performed by the reviewing team, and is the responsibility of the author of the PR.

For Node projects: It’s important to make sure changes in package.json are also affecting package-lock.json correctly.

If a dependency is not necessary, don’t add it.

When adding a new package as a dependency, make sure that the change is absolutely necessary. We would like to refrain from adding new dependencies when possible.
Documentation PRs in gitbook are reviewed by Snyk's content team. They will also advise on the best phrasing and structuring if needed.

Pull Request Approval

Once a pull request has been reviewed and all necessary revisions have been made, it is approved for merging into
the main codebase. The merging of the code PR is performed by the code owners, the merging of the documentation PR
by our content writers.

What does this PR do?

Ticket: OSM-566
We are introducing error catalogue errors to CLI and new format of out. This PR currently limits this to the MonitorError, and replaces it with UnableToCreateMonitorError.

Where should the reviewer start?

How should this be manually tested?

Any background context you want to provide?

What are the relevant tickets?

Screenshots

Additional questions

[github-actions]

	Warnings
⚠️	Since the CLI is unifying on a standard and improved tooling, we're starting to migrate old-style imports and exports to ES6 ones. A file you've modified is using either module.exports or require(). If you can, please update them to ES6 import syntax and export syntax. Files found: src/cli/commands/monitor/index.ts
⚠️	You've modified files in src/ directory, but haven't updated anything in test folder. Is there something that could be tested?

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 6b01862

[cmars]

I love the idea of introducing error catalog naming, but it raises some questions about overall tactics how we roll this out:

• Can you show the before and after? Are we only adding a new ERROR line to non-JSON output?
• [How] Does this impact JSON output? Will it introduce a breaking change if someone's developed against the de-facto undocumented output we currently have?
• Does this solution only address the monitor subcommand? For all scan types (Open Source, Code, Container, IaC) or just some of them?
• What about the test subcommands?
• Are we sure that the HTTP response codes in the v1 API we currently use will produce meaningful, actionable error codes to users?

I apologize for complicating the issue, but we're in a complicated situation. Before we can really accept a change like this, we need to understand how it fits into a longer-term plan that ensures we'll arrive at a consistent surface area which never breaks compatibility guarantees with our users, even if we intend to address this in pieces.