Add GET /quadlets/{name}

[inknos]

Fixes: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RUN-3716

Checklist

Ensure you have completed the following checklist for your pull request to be reviewed:

• Certify you wrote the patch or otherwise have the right to pass it on as an open-source patch by signing all
  commits. (git commit -s). (If needed, use git commit -s --amend). The author email must match
  the sign-off email address. See CONTRIBUTING.md
  for more information.
• Referenced issues using Fixes: #00000 in commit message (if applicable)
• Tests have been added/updated (or no tests are needed)
• Documentation has been updated (or no documentation changes are needed)
• All commits pass make validatepr (format/lint checks)
• Release note entered in the section below (or None if no user-facing changes)

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

API: Add GET /libpod/quadlets/{name}

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: inknos
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign lsm5 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[packit-as-a-service]

[NON-BLOCKING] Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check. Everyone else, feel free to ignore.

[mheon]

Out of curiousity, unrelated to this PR: Are you planning to do a refactor of the existing GET /quadlets/json as part of this?

[inknos]

Out of curiousity, unrelated to this PR: Are you planning to do a refactor of the existing GET /quadlets/json as part of this?

I am not planning on it, but let me understand better. what kind of refactor are you thinking of?

[mheon]

I don't think the existing endpoint really needs work, unless you wanted to change it to better match the new endpoints you're writing.

[Luap99]

is a 404 for any error returned by print correct? 404 should only mean doesn't exist but looking at the code I see an error like is not a supported quadlet file type which doesn't sounds like a 404 to me but rather a 400 for example.

I guess it doesn't matter to match and handing it out specific status codes means we would need to use typed error in quadlet and then match them here with errors.Is/As to differentiate. Maybe that that will get to complicated for no practical gain.

[baude]

LGTM, restarted failed tests.