feat(storage-box): implement actions

[phm07]

This PR implements actions for Storage Boxes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 64.23983% with 167 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (storage-boxes@529ad9d). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/cmd/storagebox/rollback_snapshot.go	41.66%	28 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/change_type.go	55.31%	14 Missing and 7 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/enable_protection.go	68.25%	14 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/enable_snapshot_plan.go	76.92%	12 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/update_access_settings.go	70.00%	12 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/disable_snapshot_plan.go	61.29%	8 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/reset_password.go	68.42%	8 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/disable_protection.go	66.66%	6 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
internal/cmd/storagebox/texts.go	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
internal/cmd/util/util.go	60.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##             storage-boxes    #1145   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage                 ?   64.28%           
================================================
  Files                    ?      267           
  Lines                    ?    11743           
  Branches                 ?        0           
================================================
  Hits                     ?     7549           
  Misses                   ?     3380           
  Partials                 ?      814           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	64.28% <64.23%> (?)

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

☔ 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.

[lukasmetzner]

The frontend does not allow unsetting the values I think. What about having -1 for every minute/hour, and we default to UTC 00:00?

[phm07]

If we want the same behavior as the frontend, we could also just require a value for minute and hour

[lukasmetzner]

And not allow snapshotting every minute, or every hour at all? For snapshotting every minute, I would be okay not allowing it, because I can't imagine some needing that. For snapshotting every hour, I am not sure, but probably no wants that?

If you want to move forward, I would be okay with making this a TODO in the code and marking both as required for now.

[phm07]

I think snapshotting every hour would definitely make sense, but the frontend requires both an hour and minute 🤷
If we allow not setting it, then the user could cause invalid state in the frontend using the CLI.
Ideally I think defaulting to UTC 00:00 would make the most sense. Otherwise when a user for example only sets --day-of-week, a snapshot would be created at every minute of that day of the week. Creating only one snapshot on that day at 00:00 would definitely make more sense.
On the other hand, if we allow -1 as a value, we deviate from the API. So I'm not sure what what would be the best proceeding here. If we default to 00:00 and allow -1 for minute or hour, the behavior is different in the API, CLI and the frontend.

[lukasmetzner]

If think if we support every hour, we should definitely support every minute.

I can think of:

1. --minute * --hour * --day-of-week sunday would be more intuitive I guess, but harder to parse
2. --every-minute --every-hour --day-of-week sunday adds more flags, but would be very specific about the behaviour
3. --minute -1 --hour -1 --day-of-week not as intuitive as *, but easier to parse

I think I'd prefer either the first or second option. I think we should discuss this at least with @jooola or @apricote.

But as said, we can also merge this now and talk about this internally.

[lukasmetzner]

@phm07 Looks good to me. Can you do a rebase and address the open issues, then I would take a final look, and we can merge this in storage-boxes?