fix: handle encryption and decryption errors instead of silently ignoring them

[DevipriyaS17]

Summary
Properly handles errors from Encrypt() and Decrypt() operations that were previously being silently ignored, preventing potential security issues where unencrypted passwords could be stored or used.

Problem
Password encryption/decryption errors were silently ignored using _ in multiple locations throughout the codebase. This could lead to:

• Unencrypted passwords being stored in the database when encryption fails
• Failed authentication attempts when decryption fails silently

To Reproduce the Issue

• Set an invalid encryption key (wrong size) in environment or .env file:
  echo 'APP_ENCRYPTION_KEY=shortkey' > .env
• Start the console application
• Try to add a device with a password via API
• Result: The device is created with NO error returned, but the password is stored unencrypted (or empty) in the database

Solution

Implemented proper error handling for all Encrypt() and Decrypt() calls:

• Interface updated: Redirection.SetupWsmanClient now returns error
• Mocks updated: To match new interface signature
• Tests updated: To handle new error return values

After the Fix

• Same setup with invalid encryption key
• Try to add a device with password
• Result: API returns HTTP 500 with error message

Testing

• go vet ./... - No issues
• golangci-lint run ./... - 0 issues
• go test ./... - All tests passing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 46.05263% with 41 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 39.57%. Comparing base (4d3e507) to head (7f1a986).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
internal/usecase/profiles/usecase.go	50.00%	4 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
internal/usecase/wificonfigs/usecase.go	46.66%	5 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
internal/usecase/ciraconfigs/usecase.go	53.84%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
internal/usecase/domains/usecase.go	50.00%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
internal/usecase/amtexplorer/wsman.go	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
internal/usecase/devices/interceptor.go	42.85%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
internal/mocks/devicemanagement_mocks.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
internal/usecase/devices/redirection.go	66.66%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #778      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   39.67%   39.57%   -0.10%     
==========================================
  Files         112      112              
  Lines       10657    10699      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits         4228     4234       +6     
- Misses       6047     6067      +20     
- Partials      382      398      +16     

☔ 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.

[amarnath-ac]

LGTM

[rsdmike]

This looks good @DevipriyaS17 , however why did we get rid of the mocks in our unit tests : https://github.com/device-management-toolkit/console/pull/778/changes#diff-b056c32c8c660947e21a854ea331a396f34760eacc118bb765399e7f1588fb24R47 ? that seems like it would loosen the test expectation.

[DevipriyaS17]

This looks good @DevipriyaS17 , however why did we get rid of the mocks in our unit tests : https://github.com/device-management-toolkit/console/pull/778/changes#diff-b056c32c8c660947e21a854ea331a396f34760eacc118bb765399e7f1588fb24R47 ? that seems like it would loosen the test expectation.

@rsdmike Thanks for the feedback! From my understanding, the previous test was setting up mock expectations but calling the real [redirector] instead, so the mock was never actually invoked. I've removed the unused mock and updated the test to call the real implementation directly.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood anything.