fix: add types in dmmfparser for encryption

[gurjotkaur20]

Fixes #74

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8354948239

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 80.727%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 7807229309:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	245
Relevant Lines:	290

---

💛 - Coveralls

[franky47]

Thank you!

Have you tested this in a MongoDB project? It feels like it should work, but I'd like to make sure the tree traversal works for both models and types, switching to the correct current model/type when navigating relations, as mentionned in #74.

[gurjotkaur20]

Yes, I've tested this in MongoDB project. Actually I also needed this in our project where encryption in the types was not working. If you have any specific test in your mind, please let me know. I can test that as well.

[franky47]

The test cases I have in mind are:

1. Starting from a model with no encrypted fields, include/select a relation to a model/type that does have encrypted fields, and ensure encrypt-on-write / decrypt-on-read (example)
2. Same thing, but starting from a model that does have an encrypted field.

I'm not sure how deeply nested types and models can be with each other, but ensuring that traversal of the relation inclusion graph finds the correct encrypted fields would be the way to validate this.

[gurjotkaur20]

@franky47 I tested these scenarios and found an issue in the first scenario: "Starting from a model with no encrypted fields, include/select a relation to a model/type that does have encrypted fields, and ensure encrypt-on-write / decrypt-on-read"
During create/update operation, while returning the result, decryptOnRead was not happened correctly. I've done the fix. Now, it is working fine.

[gurjotkaur20]

@franky47 could you review the PR again? Let me know if you have any thoughts.