Update error message for go-ipld-prime path resolution

[rvagg]

Arising out of the go-ipld-prime in go-ipfs work. Failing @ ipfs/kubo#7995

@hannahhoward's updates to go-path now use go-ipld-prime selector traversal to do path resolution and we get more verbose error messages.

In this change I'm allowing both the old and the new style error messages. I'm unsure if that's appropriate or not but it seems to me that coordinating this getting up through go-ipfs-http-client to go-ipfs is going to be awkward enough that being a little more lax about exact message is fine and can be resolved at some future date. I'm also making an assumption that we shouldn't be trying to emulate the old style error message when the new one is more informative.

While I'm in here, I'm not sure this test is doing what it should be testing. We have a block that looks like {"foo": {"bar": "baz"}} with CID X, then we're requesting a path through that block: X/bar/baz where there is no bar at the top level. This test is called "InvalidPathRemainder" but it's not even getting started. Is it testing what it should be testing? Was it supposed to be testing X/foo/bar/baz perhaps? 🤷 maybe we could clarify what this test is supposed to be doing while in here.

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting this PR!
A maintainer will be here shortly to review it.
We are super grateful, but we are also overloaded! Help us by making sure that:

• The context for this PR is clear, with relevant discussion, decisions
  and stakeholders linked/mentioned.

• Your contribution itself is clear (code comments, self-review for the
  rest) and in its best form. Follow the code contribution
  guidelines
  if they apply.

Getting other community members to do a review would be great help too on complex PRs (you can ask in the chats/forums). If you are unsure about something, just leave us a comment.
Next steps:

• A maintainer will triage and assign priority to this PR, commenting on
  any missing things and potentially assigning a reviewer for high
  priority items.

• The PR gets reviews, discussed and approvals as needed.

• The PR is merged by maintainers when it has been approved and comments addressed.

We currently aim to provide initial feedback/triaging within two business days. Please keep an eye on any labelling actions, as these will indicate priorities and status of your contribution.
We are very grateful for your contribution!

[rvagg]

ah, I've just discovered #67, so this is a dupe, with a different approach, will close this if that gets merged

[hannahhoward]

LGTM

[hannahhoward]

NM -- this is a dupe. Closing.