[SM-1153] Part 2 Secrets sync | Expose in SM SDK

[Thomas-Avery]

Type of change

- [ ] Bug fix
- [X] New feature development
- [ ] Tech debt (refactoring, code cleanup, dependency upgrades, etc)
- [ ] Build/deploy pipeline (DevOps)
- [ ] Other

Objective

The purpose of this PR is to expose the ability to preform secrets syncs via the Secrets Manager SDK.

Requires API bindings in #674

This should not be merged into main prior to:

• The server PR [SM-1150] Add secret sync endpoint server#3906 being merged and released
• The API bindings PR [SM-1153] Part 1 Secrets sync | Generate API bindings #674 being merged into main

Code changes

• crates/bitwarden/src/secrets_manager/client_secrets.rs:
  Add the sync method to the client secrets.

• crates/bitwarden/src/secrets_manager/secrets/mod.rs:
  Expose sync SecretsSyncRequest, and SecretsSyncResponse

• crates/bitwarden/src/secrets_manager/secrets/sync.rs:
  Implement sync SecretsSyncRequest, and SecretsSyncResponse

Before you submit

• Please add unit tests where it makes sense to do so

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 42 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 58.56%. Comparing base (f07d9a7) to head (a47032d).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...ates/bitwarden/src/secrets_manager/secrets/sync.rs	0.00%	39 Missing ⚠️
...es/bitwarden/src/secrets_manager/client_secrets.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #678      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.77%   58.56%   -0.22%     
==========================================
  Files         177      178       +1     
  Lines       11501    11543      +42     
==========================================
  Hits         6760     6760              
- Misses       4741     4783      +42     

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

[dani-garcia]

Overall LGTM, just needs some changes around the use of the MissingFields error, which has been changed very recently to include more information on which field is actually missing. I've included a suggestion on how to apply that change.

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 41eeb922-905d-4028-bb5f-ac0acb3bae98

No New Or Fixed Issues Found

[dani-garcia]

LGTM!

[coltonhurst]

Looks good, thanks @Thomas-Avery

The base branch was changed.