chore: updating VAP default failure policy to fail

[JaydipGabani]

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, using fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when the PR gets merged):
Fixes #3501

Special notes for your reviewer:

[ritazh]

unit test shouldnt be failing now vapb generation has a wait. pls check.

[JaydipGabani]

Very strange thing is happening in unit test, with ignore policy its passing, with fail policy it is getting stuck in constraint not being marked as enforced with scoped enforcement action. I am still debugging.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.56%. Comparing base (3350319) to head (32f4591).
Report is 203 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/controller/constraint/constraint_controller.go	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
pkg/drivers/k8scel/schema/schema.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (3350319) and HEAD (32f4591). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (3350319)	HEAD (32f4591)
unittests	2	1

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3702      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   54.49%   47.56%   -6.94%     
==========================================
  Files         134      236     +102     
  Lines       12329    19907    +7578     
==========================================
+ Hits         6719     9469    +2750     
- Misses       5116     9547    +4431     
- Partials      494      891     +397     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	47.56% <0.00%> (-6.94%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests
• JS Bundle Analysis - Avoid shipping oversized bundles

[maxsmythe]

LGTM after nit

[maxsmythe]

nit: can we move generating the binding name from the constraint into its own function?

I think we do this string format more than once (to handle create/update), so should help with uniformity.