Add calling annotateConfigHash and refactor unmarshaling deploy target

[Warashi]

What this PR does:

1. add calling annotateConfigHash
2. refactor the unmarshaling of the deploy target config

Why we need it:

1. we want to refresh workloads when the config changes

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Part of #4980

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

• How are users affected by this change:
• Is this breaking change:
• How to migrate (if breaking change):

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 48.27586% with 15 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 25.98%. Comparing base (d5ba3d2) to head (bc84766).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...app/pipedv1/plugin/kubernetes/deployment/server.go	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
...pp/pipedv1/plugin/kubernetes/config/application.go	82.35%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5421      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   25.96%   25.98%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         451      451              
  Lines       48793    48816      +23     
==========================================
+ Hits        12669    12683      +14     
- Misses      35118    35126       +8     
- Partials     1006     1007       +1     

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

[ffjlabo]

Almost all LGTM! I left just one nit comment.

[ffjlabo]

[nit]

Suggested change

	if tt.expectedErr {
	assert.Error(t, err)
	} else {
	assert.NoError(t, err)
	}
	assert.Equal(t, tt.expectedErr, err != nil)

[Warashi]

I think my code provides more information when debugging the codes.
Your suggested code works fine when the test passes, but there is no information about the error when the test fails.
WDYT?

[ffjlabo]

OK, there was a reason. got it. I also agree with that reason.

[ffjlabo]

🚀

[khanhtc1202]

Here you go 👍