Yaml option expansion

[axxroytovu]

Still needs cleanup so I'm leaving this as draft for now.

What does this PR do?

• Allows items and locations to individually have yaml_option definitions
• Adds syntax to allow yaml_option to check range & choice options:
  • "option>10", "option<10", "option=10" and "!option=10" all properly check against a range option
  • "option:choice" properly checks against a choice option

[silasary]

Choices should also use =, not :

[axxroytovu]

Easy enough change.

I kept : instead of = because it felt more consistent with other manual syntax that already uses : but I'm not married to it.

[silasary]

If we're supporting >= and <=, we should probably also support !=?

[axxroytovu]

It does already, but the format is "!option=value". Should be easy enough to also support "option!=value" as well.

[silasary]

Yeah. Supporting both will lead to less support requests :D

[FuzzyGamesOn]

At a glance, looks like this is just waiting on the resolve_yaml / manualobject_enabled adjustment. Skimmed over and looks good, will circle back to review more.

[nicopop]

Im currently working on fixing the issue this PR was waiting on and on the reason why this PR fails the Fuzz tests
here's a list of the changes I made so far:

• Moved both call for resolve_yaml_option in is_*_enabled to _is_manualobject_enabled so there's not dup code and also respect category being enabled or not
• added a None check to resolve_yaml_option's option getting so the type checker would be happy that in the event of a direct call to this func with a invalid option thing will only break in the way we want
• Made resolve_yaml_option return only a bool like it did before this PR so any previous call to this helper function is not broken by this PR
  • this Fixed the Fuzz Test since starting_items evalutated None as false and thus skiped any block without a positive yaml_option result
  • This also mean any hooks made previously that called resolve_yaml_option could be broken if they did similar tests

If any of those changes are not something we want I can always revert them