Add owner-name label on resources

[super-harsh]

Closes #3190
What this PR does / why we need it:

This PR enables controller to add serviceoperator.azure.com/owner-name: <OwnerName> label at the time of adding the initial resource state

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (f6ab7ee) 53.08% compared to head (d33d1a6) 53.27%.
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
v2/pkg/genruntime/base_types.go	87.50%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3608      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   53.08%   53.27%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files        1286     1340      +54     
  Lines      406699   438163   +31464     
==========================================
+ Hits       215894   233431   +17537     
- Misses     159804   170240   +10436     
- Partials    31001    34492    +3491     

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

[matthchr]

Users can't filter w/ annotations I don't think, only with labels?

So I think this needs to be a label not an annotation.

[matthchr]

I think owner-name or owner would be clearer than owned-by.

Do we also need to think about owner-group-kind or something as well, for extension resources such as roleassignment?

[super-harsh]

Yep makes sense - Users can filter through annotations but isn't as easy as with labels.
Made the changes to add label instead of annotation and changes the name to owned-by to owner-name.

Not very sure about if adding owner-group-kind would bring much value.. since user can anyway filter based on owner-name - which is more specific rather than filtering all resources based on just group + kind?

[theunrepentantgeek]

Not having owner-group-kind forces the user to do another query to discover the owner type if they don't already know it. I think there's value in making it easy/obvious.

[super-harsh]

Sure! and that applies to only resources which are KubernetesReferences?