Implements screenshot feature for dell

[joelrebel]

What does this PR implement/change/remove?

Implements screenshot capture feature for Dell IDracs.

Checklist

• Tests added
• Similar commits squashed

The HW vendor this change applies to (if applicable)

Dell

The HW model number, product name this change applies to (if applicable)

Description for changelog/release notes

- Screenshot feature for Dell Idracs

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 53.33% and project coverage change: +0.45 🎉

Comparison is base (5f3cb35) 44.14% compared to head (49f837d) 44.59%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #333      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   44.14%   44.59%   +0.45%     
==========================================
  Files          37       39       +2     
  Lines        2904     3054     +150     
==========================================
+ Hits         1282     1362      +80     
- Misses       1494     1556      +62     
- Partials      128      136       +8     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
internal/redfishwrapper/client.go	21.17% <0.00%> (-1.05%)	⬇️
option.go	21.15% <0.00%> (-2.76%)	⬇️
providers/dell/idrac.go	37.20% <37.20%> (ø)
client.go	57.52% <75.00%> (+1.64%)	⬆️
bmc/screenshot.go	94.73% <94.73%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[joelrebel]

rebase on main with changes

[chrisdoherty4]

lgtm

[jacobweinstock]

Hey @joelrebel , a lot of this looks like duplicate code of the redfish provider. Seems like there are just some specific dell endpoints for being able to screenshot. What would this look like if it was incorporated into the redfish provider? Would it make it too messy?

[joelrebel]

@jacobweinstock I did take that approach earlier, and the Redfish provider starts to get messy, which now I'd like to move into the relevant provider. In this case we need to support a minimal set of features that is vendor specific - not present in Redfish spec (and most likely will never be), and so it made more sense have a provider implementation for it.

[jacobweinstock]

@jacobweinstock I did take that approach earlier, and the Redfish provider starts to get messy, which now I'd like to move into the relevant provider. In this case we need to support a minimal set of features that is vendor specific - not present in Redfish spec (and most likely will never be), and so it made more sense have a provider implementation for it.

Ah i see. Thanks!