[SM-1293] Add the ability to fetch a secret's access policies

[Thomas-Avery]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/SM-1293

📔 Objective

The objective of this PR is to add the ability to fetch a secret's access policies.
This change includes consolidating access policy response models so they can be used for secret access policies

Server PR: bitwarden/server#4146

⏰ 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 38.94737% with 58 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.31%. Comparing base (769d67a) to head (dfa152d).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...er/shared/access-policies/access-policy.service.ts	0.00%	25 Missing ⚠️
...odels/responses/secret-access-policies.response.ts	0.00%	12 Missing ⚠️
...olicies/models/responses/access-policy.response.ts	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...sponses/project-people-access-policies.response.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...service-account-people-access-policies.response.ts	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
...oject-service-accounts-access-policies.response.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...nt-granted-policies-permission-details.response.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...nager/projects/project/project-people.component.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ects/project/project-service-accounts.component.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ccounts/people/service-account-people.component.ts	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9463      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   28.17%   28.31%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files        2435     2437       +2     
  Lines       71688    71641      -47     
  Branches    13396    13396              
==========================================
+ Hits        20195    20282      +87     
+ Misses      49900    49765     -135     
- Partials     1593     1594       +1     

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

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 43914b87-cd89-4d6e-a4d2-3af649392275

New Issues

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package	Checkmarx Insight
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/apps/web/src/app/tools/password-generator-history.component.html: [11](https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/sm/sm-1293//apps/web/src/app/tools/password-generator-history.component.html# L11)	Attack Vector
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/apps/web/src/app/tools/password-generator-history.component.html: [11](https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/sm/sm-1293//apps/web/src/app/tools/password-generator-history.component.html# L11)	Attack Vector
	Client_Privacy_Violation	/libs/components/src/color-password/color-password.component.ts: [26](https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/blob/sm/sm-1293//libs/components/src/color-password/color-password.component.ts# L26)	Attack Vector

[mzieniukbw]

happy to approve, but i wonder why this is not being merged to main branch ?
The sm/sm-1292 does not seem to be correct "feature branch".

[Thomas-Avery]

happy to approve, but i wonder why this is not being merged to main branch ? The sm/sm-1292 does not seem to be correct "feature branch".

I plan on targeting both client and server SM-1293 branches for the work in SM-654.
I'll need the work done in SM-1292 for SM-654.

The base branch was changed.