feat(js-rattler): export MatchSpec and BuildNumberSpec

[ayushman1210]

Description

This PR adds MatchSpec bindings to js-rattler, exposing the conda match specification type to JavaScript/TypeScript consumers of the WASM package.

Key Features:

• Idiomatic JS API: Implemented a MatchSpec.fromOptions() static method and full getters/setters for all
• MatchSpec fields, making it easy to create and modify specs programmatically.
• WASM Compatibility Fix: Fixed a panic in the core rattler-conda-types parser where std::env::current_dir() was called unconditionally. It now falls back to / in environments where filesystem access is restricted (e.g., browsers).
• Match Support: Exposed .matches(packageRecord) to allow checking if a PackageRecord satisfies a specification.
• BuildNumberSpec: Proper wrapper type for build number constraints.

Code Example

import { MatchSpec, PackageRecord } from "@conda-org/rattler";

// Create from string
const spec = new MatchSpec("python >=3.10");

// Or create from options
const specFromOptions = MatchSpec.fromOptions({
    name: "python",
    version: ">=3.10",
    build: "py310*"
});

// Check if a record matches
const isMatch = spec.matches(packageRecord);

Fixes #1142

How Has This Been Tested?

I have added a comprehensive test suite in js-rattler/src/MatchSpec.test.ts covering parsing, options-based construction, mutations via setters, and matching logic.

AI Disclosure

• [ ✅] This PR contains AI-generated content.
  • [ ✅] I have tested any AI-generated content in my PR.
  • [ ✅] I take responsibility for any AI-generated content in my PR.
    Tools: {e.g. GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.}

Checklist:

• [✅] I have performed a self-review of my own code
• [ ✅] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ✅] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [ ✅] I have added sufficient tests to cover my changes.

[ayushman1210]

hey @baszalmstra please review this pr when you have some free time
thanks !!

[baszalmstra]

This includes changes from another PR.

I have performed a self-review of my own code

Clearly not, or you would have caught this.

This is also a duplicate of #2146

[ayushman1210]

@baszalmstra Thanks for the feedback.
I have removed the changes from other branch and updated the pr .I noticed #2146 earlier, but since there had been no activity on it for some time, I went ahead and attempted an implementation. I agree that this overlaps with that PR.
If you'd prefer, I can close this PR or coordinate with the author of #2146. Please let me know what would be best for the project.

[baszalmstra]

Yes please coordinate, its only open for 6 days which is not a long time