feat: Doc field encryption

[islamaliev]

Relevant issue(s)

Resolves #2809 #2812

Description

Adds field-level encryption which allows separate fields
to be encryption with a dedicated symmectic key.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.61905% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.17%. Comparing base (32092ac) to head (7398c12).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2817      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    79.14%   79.17%   +0.03%     
===========================================
  Files          318      319       +1     
  Lines        24162    24256      +94     
===========================================
+ Hits         19122    19203      +81     
- Misses        3660     3667       +7     
- Partials      1380     1386       +6     

Flag	Coverage Δ
all-tests	79.17% <97.62%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files	Coverage Δ
cli/utils.go	71.26% <ø> (-0.31%)	⬇️
client/request/mutation.go	100.00% <ø> (ø)
datastore/prefix_query.go	86.67% <100.00%> (-1.21%)	⬇️
http/client_collection.go	44.75% <100.00%> (+0.77%)	⬆️
http/handler_collection.go	71.52% <100.00%> (+0.54%)	⬆️
internal/core/key.go	84.28% <100.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
internal/db/collection.go	73.65% <100.00%> (+0.81%)	⬆️
internal/db/errors.go	65.68% <100.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
internal/encryption/context.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
internal/merkle/clock/clock.go	68.75% <100.00%> (-1.79%)	⬇️
... and 7 more

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 32092ac...7398c12. Read the comment docs.

[shahzadlone]

Likely also want to add the Resolve #2812 in your PR description

[AndrewSisley]

LGTM Islam, thanks :) Just got a couple of todo's for your RE GQL and testing.

[AndrewSisley]

LGTM - thanks Islam :)

[nasdf]

LGTM. Great work!

One thought I had after reviewing: it might be beneficial to merge all of the db context related stuff into a single package at some point in the future.

[AndrewSisley]

One thought I had after reviewing: it might be beneficial to merge all of the db context related stuff into a single package at some point in the future.

I like that thought :)

[islamaliev]

One thought I had after reviewing: it might be beneficial to merge all of the db context related stuff into a single package at some point in the future.

I'm not a big fan to be honest. I'd much prefer to split and group packages by their domain, not based on their functional types. Just because they have something to do with context doesn't mean they are cohesive enough to put them in one package.

[AndrewSisley]

I'd much prefer to split and group packages by their domain, not based on their functional types. Just because they have something to do with context doesn't mean they are cohesive enough to put them in one package.

I understand what you mean, but for me (thinking as a user) I see them all in the 'Defra' domain, just like we lump config, and the client package into singular clumps. defra.config, defra.ctx, defra.client, etc.