WR-1279 add waiting room zone-level settings

[piperswe]

Description

This adds support for the new Waiting Room zone-level settings, which are used to enable search engine crawler bypass.

Has your change been tested?

Tests were added, mirroring the other tests

Screenshots (if appropriate):

Types of changes

What sort of change does your code introduce/modify?

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• This change is using publicly documented (api.cloudflare.com or developers.cloudflare.com) and stable APIs.

[github-actions]

changelog detected ✅

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1276 (3508050) into master (0c3db86) will decrease coverage by 0.17%.
The diff coverage is 40.58%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1276      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   49.23%   49.07%   -0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         131      133       +2     
  Lines       12665    13032     +367     
==========================================
+ Hits         6236     6395     +159     
- Misses       4988     5143     +155     
- Partials     1441     1494      +53     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
access_application.go	76.52% <ø> (ø)
access_organization.go	64.70% <ø> (ø)
access_policy.go	76.31% <ø> (ø)
certificate_packs.go	50.90% <ø> (ø)
cloudflare.go	67.28% <ø> (ø)
device_posture_rule.go	61.80% <ø> (ø)
dns.go	45.05% <0.00%> (-28.16%)	⬇️
dns_firewall.go	21.42% <ø> (ø)
errors.go	40.78% <ø> (ø)
logpush.go	52.10% <ø> (ø)
... and 7 more

[jacobbednarz]

thanks for the PR @piperswe 🙇 the changes themselves look fine (minor nitpicks inline) however, for the method signatures, i'd recommend swapping to the method signature conventions outlined in the experimental documentation which allows more flexibility but stronger type guarantees for the future. if you're looking for some prior art, you can checkout #1270 which was a new resource added within the last couple of weeks that follows these conventions. i've also commented on one of the methods to help you get started.

[jacobbednarz]

[github-actions]

This functionality has been released in v0.67.0.

For further feature requests or bug reports with this functionality, please create a new GitHub issue following the template. Thank you!