cm: launcher: rank scheduling errors in balancer

[mykola-kobets-epam]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 63.63636% with 16 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.03%. Comparing base (c38d1f6) to head (ea56756).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/core/cm/launcher/balancer.cpp	53.57%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/core/cm/launcher/rankederror.hpp	81.25%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                   Coverage Diff                   @@
##           feature_release_9.1     #571      +/-   ##
=======================================================
- Coverage                85.04%   85.03%   -0.02%     
=======================================================
  Files                      314      315       +1     
  Lines                    28521    28544      +23     
  Branches                  3823     3825       +2     
=======================================================
+ Hits                     24257    24272      +15     
- Misses                    4264     4272       +8     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
36.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 80%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[al1img]

Still do not understand why we need ranked error. Instance scheduling should fail on first error.
In our case, if there are different manifests for different arch. First we should check if there are nodes matches item arches. If not, return error - no suitable node architecture found. Then we try to schedule according to resource, if there are not enough resources available, return resource error.