Use feedback/result structs in cli commands instead of rpc ones

[alessio-perugini]

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

See how to contribute

• The PR has no duplicates (please search among the Pull Requests
  before creating one)
• The PR follows
  our contributing guidelines
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)
• UPGRADING.md has been updated with a migration guide (for breaking changes)
• configuration.schema.json updated if new parameters are added.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

IT add a layer of mappers used only in the cli output of ours command and subcommand

What is the current behavior?

We are currently returning/using the rpc structs which isn't ideal for 2 reasons:

• Maps can be serialized randomly
• Enums are serialized as a number instead of their string representation.

What is the new behavior?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change, and is titled accordingly?

Other information

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 200 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (ba72833) 64.48% compared to head (1d855a0) 64.96%.
Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2389      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   64.48%   64.96%   +0.48%     
==========================================
  Files         207      207              
  Lines       19593    20211     +618     
==========================================
+ Hits        12634    13130     +496     
- Misses       5867     5966      +99     
- Partials     1092     1115      +23     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	64.96% <69.32%> (+0.48%)	⬆️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
internal/cli/compile/compile.go	73.41% <100.00%> (+0.24%)	⬆️
internal/cli/core/list.go	95.71% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/cli/core/search.go	77.65% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/cli/lib/list.go	94.44% <100.00%> (+0.26%)	⬆️
internal/cli/upload/upload.go	56.73% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/cli/outdated/outdated.go	74.25% <92.85%> (+1.34%)	⬆️
internal/cli/sketch/new.go	90.00% <60.00%> (-3.48%)	⬇️
internal/cli/lib/examples.go	55.88% <25.00%> (ø)
internal/cli/lib/check_deps.go	76.81% <46.15%> (-6.27%)	⬇️
internal/cli/lib/search.go	67.26% <53.33%> (-0.58%)	⬇️
... and 6 more

... and 5 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[cmaglie]

• I've left some nitpicks here and there.
• I don't like the enumeration handling, I've left some suggestions, but I'm not sure let's chat about it next week
• Great work on the unit-testing 👍🏼