fix: Enable doc encryption for embedded client

[islamaliev]

Relevant issue(s)

Resolves #3754

Description

Add create doc options to collection create-doc-related methods.
The options allow specifying parameters for doc encryption.

As opposed to the previous approach with passing the context, this moves parameters handing into the interface and unifies it for all clients.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 83.95062% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.24%. Comparing base (b04272f) to head (38a019c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
js/client_collection.go	52.00%	10 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
http/handler_collection.go	80.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3755      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    77.18%   77.24%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          422      423       +1     
  Lines        38257    38289      +32     
===========================================
+ Hits         29528    29573      +45     
+ Misses        6855     6847       -8     
+ Partials      1874     1869       -5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
all-tests	77.24% <83.95%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
cli/collection_create.go	73.26% <100.00%> (-1.19%)	⬇️
client/collection.go	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
http/client.go	52.05% <ø> (-0.24%)	⬇️
http/client_collection.go	51.69% <100.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️
internal/db/collection.go	68.70% <100.00%> (+0.50%)	⬆️
internal/planner/create.go	78.12% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
js/utils.go	41.43% <ø> (-9.17%)	⬇️
http/handler_collection.go	71.97% <80.00%> (+0.13%)	⬆️
js/client_collection.go	39.92% <52.00%> (+1.10%)	⬆️

... and 12 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 b04272f...38a019c. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jsimnz]

LGTM, minor suggestion raised on some of the param types.

One thing I wanted to highlight as a general convo (non blocker to this PR) - Long term, how much do we want to expose the manual API for (field-level) doc encryption vs soley relying on the policy/schema to determine and inform the rest of the system when docs and fields should be encrypted. (We can have this discussion in discord if prefered)

[islamaliev]

how much do we want to expose the manual API for (field-level) doc encryption vs soley relying on the policy/schema to determine and inform the rest of the system when docs and fields should be encrypted.

Encrypt a document or not is a decision made for each individual document, the same applies to fields. Policy is something that is globally applied to all documents. Are you suggesting abandoning the idea of having field-level encryption individually configurable?

[nasdf]

LGTM. Don't forget to update the JS client as well. It is using the context method like the CLI was.

[AndrewSisley]

Are you suggesting abandoning the idea of having field-level encryption individually configurable?

This does sound like an easily avoidable user-complication, but I've not thought a whole load about it and I cant remember a previous discussion around it.

[AndrewSisley]

LGTM :)