Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In the `Fetched profile not of type 'unstructured'` log line, consider logging `profileObj` rather than `obj` so the reported type corresponds to the value actually being type-asserted.
- The mock listers’ `List` and `Get` methods currently return `(nil, nil)`; having them return an error or panic instead would make tests fail fast if those methods are accidentally used, preventing silent misbehavior in future changes.

## Individual Comments

### Comment 1
<location path="sensor/kubernetes/complianceoperator/dispatchers/complianceoperatortailoredprofiles_test.go" line_range="79-88" />
<code_context>
+	baseProfile := &v1alpha1.Profile{
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (testing):** Add assertions that the tailored profile inherits labels/annotations/description from the base profile when Extends is set

In `TestProcessEvent_ExtendsProfile`, the test only checks rule computation, but this change also preserves labels, annotations, and description from the base profile when `Extends` is set. Please set `Labels`, `Annotations`, and `Description` on `baseProfile`, leave the tailored profile’s `Spec.Description` empty, and assert that the resulting `ComplianceOperatorProfile` inherits those values. That will lock in the new `baseProfile` behavior and guard against regressions.

Suggested implementation:

```golang
		ObjectMeta: metav1.ObjectMeta{
			Name:      "ocp4-cis",
			Namespace: "openshift-compliance",
			Labels: map[string]string{
				"base-profile-label": "label-value",
			},
			Annotations: map[string]string{
				"base-profile-annotation": "annotation-value",
			},
		},

```

```golang
		ProfilePayload: v1alpha1.ProfilePayload{
			ID:          "xccdf_org.ssgproject.content_profile_cis",
			Description: "Base profile description",

```

To fully implement your review comment, the following additional changes are needed elsewhere in `TestProcessEvent_ExtendsProfile` (not visible in the provided snippet):

1. **TailoredProfile spec description**  
   - Locate the construction of the `*v1alpha1.TailoredProfile` used in this test.  
   - In `tp.Spec`, ensure `Description` is explicitly empty, e.g.:
     ```go
     Spec: v1alpha1.TailoredProfileSpec{
         // other fields...
         Description: "",
     }
     ```

2. **Assertions on the resulting ComplianceOperatorProfile**  
   - After the code under test processes the event and produces the resulting `ComplianceOperatorProfile` (let’s call it `cop`), add assertions verifying inherited metadata and description:
     ```go
     require.Equal(t, baseProfile.Labels, cop.Labels)
     require.Equal(t, baseProfile.Annotations, cop.Annotations)
     require.Equal(t, baseProfile.Description, cop.Spec.Description)
     ```
   - If the description is stored differently (e.g., `cop.Annotations["description"]` or a differently named field), adjust the assertion to target the actual field used for the profile description in your `ComplianceOperatorProfile` type.

These changes will ensure the test not only validates rule computation, but also that labels, annotations, and description from the base profile are preserved when `Extends` is set, guarding against regressions in the new `baseProfile` behavior.
</issue_to_address>

Please address the comments from this code review:

## Overall Comments
- In the tests, you index `event.ForwardMessages[0]` without asserting that `event.ForwardMessages` is non-nil and non-empty; consider adding a `require.NotEmpty(t, event.ForwardMessages)` (or similar) before indexing to avoid panics if the dispatcher behavior changes.
- For tailored profiles without `Spec.Extends`, `baseProfile` is left at its zero value and you rely solely on enabled rules; consider explicitly documenting or guarding this path (e.g., early-return when `Extends == ""` and there are disabled rules) so the behavior is clearer and misconfigurations are easier to diagnose.