[PM-21782] Pass encryptedFor to cipher functions

[SaintPatrck]

🎟️ Tracking

PM-21782

Relates to bitwarden/ios#1604
Relates to bitwarden/server#5838

📔 Objective

This commit updates several functions to accept an encryptedFor parameter, which specifies the user ID for whom the cipher is encrypted. This property is used by the server to verify the cipher is encrypted by the correct user. If verification fails the server responds with an appropriate error message.

This change affects the following:

• toEncryptedNetworkCipher and toEncryptedNetworkCipherResponse extension functions for Cipher now require an encryptedFor parameter.
• CipherJsonRequest and SyncResponseJson.Cipher now include an encryptedFor field.
• SDK functions like encryptCipher and decryptFile have been updated to align with these changes.

Additionally, this update includes the following SDK related changes:

• Adding the encryptedFor related logic (Add-userid-to-encryption-methods sdk-internal#278)
• Update in protocol and objects naming to have {foo}Client[Protocol] instead of Client{foo}[Protocol] (Rename all clients to follow Domain Client sdk-internal#224)
• Update attachments decryption to use AttachmentView instead of Attachment (Accept AttachmentView in AttachmentFile sdk-internal#255)

📸 Screenshots

Error message when server verification fails

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 537601b6-8370-48c9-a4b0-3209405de3ee

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.12195% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 82.81%. Comparing base (a3d2e51) to head (bf0307b).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../bitwarden/data/vault/manager/CipherManagerImpl.kt	94.28%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5297   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.80%   82.81%           
=======================================
  Files         678      678           
  Lines       50889    50905   +16     
  Branches     6924     6924           
=======================================
+ Hits        42141    42157   +16     
  Misses       6433     6433           
  Partials     2315     2315           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.