fix: set proper destination port for TCPRoute and UDPRoute

[programmer04]

What this PR does / why we need it:

As described in #4864 TCPRoute sets the incorrect destinations port on the Routes it creates (sets the desired backend service port instead of the listener port). The same happens for UDPRoute. It ignores the port set by specifying SectionName, it always requires the same port for the backend service as for the listener.

This PR fixes it for both cases. When SectionName is specified take config from it. Otherwise, it works now as described (a little bit vague) in spec

When unspecified (empty string), this will reference the entire resource. (src)

so every listener that matches the protocol (UDP or TCP) is used.

It breaks current behavior that automatically matches ports by number from target services to listening ports on Gateway with the same numbers.

It is interesting that no conformance test from gateway-api catches that problem - a test for this should exist in gateway-api project.

There is also another field for this purpose PortNumber it is part of experimental and extended gateway-api, currently KIC doesn't care about it at all. A separate issue has been created to provide support for it and will be prioritized accordingly see

• Properly support extended, experimental field Spec.CommonRouteSpec.ParentRefs[*].Port in TCPRoute & UDPRoute #4958

Which issue this PR fixes:

Fixes #4864

Special notes for your reviewer:

The first commit 1100749 introduces adjustments for TCPRoute and TLSRoute integration tests to check such a scenario. Test for TCPRoute does not pass, for TLSRoute bug doesn't exist because matching is done with hostname.

The second commit b385f15 introduces actual fix and unit test cases, also for UDPRoute. Integration test for UDPRoute requires refactoring (to make it similar to TCP one) which is not in the scope of this PR due to a major rework of it in PR #4823. After it should be adjusted to test changes introduced in this PR too.

PR Readiness Checklist:

Complete these before marking the PR as ready to review:

• the CHANGELOG.md release notes have been updated to reflect any significant (and particularly user-facing) changes introduced by this PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 12 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (4efc818) 77.6% compared to head (91b4c66) 77.6%.

❗ Current head 91b4c66 differs from pull request most recent head e224eea. Consider uploading reports for the commit e224eea to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##            main   #4928   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage   77.6%   77.6%           
=====================================
  Files        166     166           
  Lines      18640   18652   +12     
=====================================
+ Hits       14473   14485   +12     
- Misses      3329    3330    +1     
+ Partials     838     837    -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
internal/dataplane/parser/parser.go	89.6% <88.8%> (-2.2%)	⬇️
internal/dataplane/parser/translate_tcproute.go	64.2% <75.0%> (+5.6%)	⬆️
internal/dataplane/parser/translate_tlsroute.go	56.9% <66.6%> (+0.6%)	⬆️
...ernal/dataplane/parser/translate_routes_helpers.go	86.2% <84.2%> (+1.8%)	⬆️
internal/dataplane/parser/translate_udproute.go	70.1% <72.7%> (-1.6%)	⬇️

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[programmer04]

@pmalek major rework was done, PR description is updated accordingly, PTAL Let's see if I understand gateway-api specification correctly 😛