Document the AccessRuleId write contract on ICollectionRepository

[Hinton]

🎟️ Tracking

Follow-up to #7981 review comment.

📔 Objective

CreateAsync and ReplaceAsync both ignore Collection.AccessRuleId — a new collection is always created ungoverned, and an ordinary collection edit can neither erase nor forge a PAM association. That is a contract of ICollectionRepository, not a quirk of MSSQL: EF Core enforces exactly the same thing via PropertySaveBehavior.Ignore on the property in DatabaseContext, and both are covered by the shared [DatabaseTheory] tests in CollectionRepositoryReplaceTests.

Documenting it only on the Dapper implementation hid it from the consumers who need it, and implied it was provider-specific.

• The contract moves to ICollectionRepository.CreateAsync / ReplaceAsync, where callers see it and every implementation inherits it.
• What stays on the Dapper methods is only the mechanism by which MSSQL upholds it (the sprocs accept @AccessRuleId and deliberately ignore it).

Documentation only — no behaviour change.

[github-actions]

🤖 Bitwarden Claude Code Review

Overall Assessment: APPROVE

This is a documentation-only change that moves the Collection.AccessRuleId write contract from the Dapper CollectionRepository onto ICollectionRepository.CreateAsync/ReplaceAsync, leaving only the MSSQL mechanism on the Dapper methods. I verified the documented behaviour against both providers: Collection_Create and Collection_Update accept @AccessRuleId and never assign it, all Collection_*WithGroups/Users wrappers delegate to those two procedures, and EF Core enforces the same contract via PropertySaveBehavior.Ignore on the tracked property in DatabaseContext. The cref/paramref targets resolve within the file's existing using scope, and no executable code paths changed.

Code Review Details

No findings.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 68.21%. Comparing base (a0a31b6) to head (cf549ac).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8186   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   68.21%   68.21%           
=======================================
  Files        2343     2343           
  Lines      101919   101919           
  Branches     9197     9197           
=======================================
+ Hits        69520    69525    +5     
  Misses      30085    30085           
+ Partials     2314     2309    -5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.