tests: verify sanitizer cc_feature injection via compile-time assertion

[RSingh1511]

Notes for Reviewer

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

• PR title is short, expressive and meaningful
• Commits are properly organized
• Relevant issues are linked in the References section
• Tests are conducted
• Unit tests are added

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

• Commits are properly organized and messages follow S-CORE commit guidelines
• Unit tests have been written for new behavior
• Public API is documented
• PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

• All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

References

Closes #24

[nradakovic]

So I had something else in mind. Option number 1:

cc_feature(
    name = "ubsan_base",
    args = [
        "":ubsan_link_args_base",
    ],
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    implies = ["debug_symbols"],
    feature_name = "score_ubsan_base",
)

cc_feature(
    name = "ubsan_gcc",
    feature_name = "score_ubsan_gcc",
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    implies = ["ubsan_base"],
)

cc_feature(
    name = "ubsan_clang",
    args = [
        "":ubsan_link_args_clang_runtime",
    ],
    feature_name = "score_ubsan_clang",
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    implies = ["ubsan_base"],
)

Option 2 (requires some changes on bazel_platforms side):

cc_feature(
    name = "ubsan",
    args = select({
        "@score_bazel_platforms//config:clang": [
             ":ubsan_link_args_clang_runtime",
         ],
        "//condition:default": [],
    }) + [
         ":ubsan_compile_args",
         ":ubsan_link_args_base",
    ]
    visibility = ["//visibility:public"],
    implies = ["debug_symbols"],
    feature_name = "score_ubsan",
)

Flag @score_bazel_platforms//config:clang is global config set via platform (--platforms=@score_bazel_platforms//:x86_64-linux-gcc_12.2.0-posix or --platforms=@score_bazel_platforms//:x86_64-linux-clang_16-posix.
With your change we still cannot use ubsan on gcc based toolchains. With my, we can.

[nradakovic]

For start, I would maybe go with 1 since this one doesn't require that we introduce new platform definitions (which is OK, just we need approval from infra group).