feat(mr): mr settings scaffolding

[gitdallas]

Closes: https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHOAIENG-7057

Description

Scaffolding for model registry admin settings, component with just empty state for now

How Has This Been Tested?

manually tested that the nav item shows up based on useArea, and that the page renders the empty state properly

Test Impact

none, just scaffolding for now

Request review criteria:

make sure the nav item appears properly and that the page renders empty state with an action button that navs to model registries.

i had to run /backend vs :ext from /frontend as the :ext doesn't have the setting for it yet.

Self checklist (all need to be checked):

• The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
• Commits have been squashed into descriptive, self-contained units of work (e.g. 'WIP' and 'Implements feedback' style messages have been removed)
• Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
• The developer has added tests or explained why testing cannot be added (unit or cypress tests for related changes)

If you have UI changes:

• Included any necessary screenshots or gifs if it was a UI change.
• Included tags to the UX team if it was a UI/UX change (find relevant UX in the SMEs section).

After the PR is posted & before it merges:

• The developer has tested their solution on a cluster by using the image produced by the PR to main

[lucferbux]

I wanna have a conversation about whether we should have an extra feature flag or not, I see the value on that but I'm not sure 100% if it's needed.

And we should add the extra checks in the supported area.

[gitdallas]

/retest-required

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 37.50000% with 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.08%. Comparing base (40ac3bb) to head (39b7693).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2810      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.13%   78.08%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files        1076     1077       +1     
  Lines       22629    22637       +8     
  Branches     5722     5722              
==========================================
- Hits        17682    17676       -6     
- Misses       4947     4961      +14     

Files	Coverage Δ
frontend/src/concepts/areas/const.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)
frontend/src/utilities/NavData.tsx	97.91% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
frontend/src/app/AppRoutes.tsx	91.66% <50.00%> (-1.82%)	⬇️
...es/modelRegistrySettings/ModelRegistrySettings.tsx	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 40ac3bb...39b7693. Read the comment docs.

[andrewballantyne]

As I noted on Slack... not sure you should be creating a new area... a new flag is a bad idea, but the new area seems confusing. Why not use the existing area & feature flag?

[lucferbux]

/lgtm

[mturley]

LGTM other than a question for @lucferbux above

Requests were addressed

[lucferbux]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lucferbux, mturley

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [lucferbux]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment