CodeCompliance_Engine: Check Adapter namespaces contain external

[FraserGreenroyd]

Linked to: 1) #72 (comment)

And: 2) BHoM/BHoM_Adapter#210

And: 3) #72 (comment)

There is a new compliance rule that adapter projects namespace should be as described in 2 above.

However, we have previously found that namespace checking can be tricky to cover for all situations when running CI checks. Previously we did it based on the filepath which looked for the toolkit name, but this prevented the ability to inject into existing namespaces without flagging as a CI fail.

We would need a similar set of discrete rules which allow the CI to know if a namespace should include the External keyword or not.

This issue is to discuss that, and see if such a set of clear rules can be found that will allow for the creation of a CI check to aid us in keeping compliance on this new rule.

[IsakNaslundBh]

Not sure if simple from the CI but could we check:

1. Does the toolkit contain an adapter, (except for the BHoM adapter)
2. If yes, does the file sit in a oM/Engine of this toolkit
3. Does the namespace contain the first part of the toolkit (i.e. Robot, Tas etc.)
4. If yes, the third word of the namespace should be "External" (after BH and oM/Engine).

Would that be easily doable? Basically, first pre-check if you need to run the check at all by checking if an adapter exists in the repo, then check the namespace based on repo.