fix(controller): re-allow changing executor args

[agilgur5]

Fixes #12315

Motivation

• this was unintentionally removed in feat!: Remove deprecated config flags. Fixes #7971 #8009 (see my review comment), which was meant to remove deprecated config flags and accidentally removed this as well
  • it was most certainly on accident as the PR description & issue description don't mention this, and the docs were left as-is for executor args
  • unfortunately this means that 3.3 was missing this entirely and current versions of 3.4 and 3.5 were too
    • should be able to backport this to 3.4.x at least and get into a 3.5.x patch release

See my root cause analysis in #12315 (comment)

Modifications

• add back the functionality to configure args for the Executor

• also add a (regression) test for customizing the Executor container

  • the args as well as resources.limits, since those were previously untested in this file
  • named the same as TestMainContainerCustomization

• also fixes a misnamed test in the same file

Verification

• added a new test for some previously untested executor container customizations

[agilgur5]

Unrelated E2E test failure seems to be due to #12413, c.f. #12596

[isubasinghe]

Hmm this test failure is kinda annoying, do you have any opinions on the review process when there is a flaky test @agilgur5?
I think perhaps urgent PRs can be expedited but others have to wait until the tests pass?

[agilgur5]

We can't skip tests to merge, they're required CI checks after all. Only repo admins might be able to skip them (which I assume is only Leads, but idk).
In the case of admins, I think it's fine if we have agreement that it's a test flake.

But realistically we really need to fix or skip a flake that's hit this frequently -- i.e. the flake is one of the highest priority since it blocks merging, causes confusion, etc.

[isubasinghe]

We can't skip tests to merge, they're required CI checks after all. Only repo admins might be able to skip them (which I assume is only Leads, but idk). In the case of admins, I think it's fine if we have agreement that it's a test flake.

Ah okay I thought we'd be getting those rights after the membership changes, perhaps not something we need to think about in that case.

But realistically we really need to fix or skip a flake that's hit this frequently -- i.e. the flake is one of the highest priority since it blocks merging, causes confusion, etc.

Yeah I agree on this, actually I have some opinions on e2e testing, I will open an issue about that.

[agilgur5]

Ah okay I thought we'd be getting those rights after the membership changes, perhaps not something we need to think about in that case.

I believe we'd have at least the "Write" role, not sure about "Maintain" or "Admin" roles

[agilgur5]

Merged main to fix E2Es as #12596 is now merged