feat(keystore): impl SearchableEntity for StoredCredential [WPB-22949]

[coriolinus]

What's new in this PR

---

PR Submission Checklist for internal contributors

• The PR Title
  • conforms to the style of semantic commits messages¹ supported in Wire's Github Workflow²
  • contains a reference JIRA issue number like SQPIT-764
  • answers the question: If merged, this PR will: ... ³

1. https://sparkbox.com/foundry/semantic_commit_messages
2. https://github.com/wireapp/.github#usage
3. E.g. feat(conversation-list): Sort conversations by most emojis in the title #SQPIT-764.

[github-actions]

Bencher Report

Branch	prgn/feat/22949-searchableentity-for-stored-credential
Testbed	ubuntu-latest

⚠️ WARNING: No Threshold found!

Without a Threshold, no Alerts will ever be generated.

• Latency (nanoseconds (ns))

Click here to create a new Threshold
For more information, see the Threshold documentation.
To only post results if a Threshold exists, set the --ci-only-thresholds flag.

Click to view all benchmark results

Benchmark	Latency	microseconds (µs)
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	15,556.00 µs
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	705.03 µs
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	3,824.10 µs
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	6,849.00 µs
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	10,555.00 µs
Commit add f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	13,212.00 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	1,008,500.00 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	675.54 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	78,921.00 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	216,160.00 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	424,400.00 µs
Commit add f(number clients)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	675,290.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	114,700.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	22,573.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	40,921.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	56,467.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	76,056.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	99,944.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/1	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	15,496.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/101	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	113,300.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/21	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	32,923.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/41	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	54,331.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/61	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	73,107.00 µs
Commit pending proposals f(pending size)/cs1/mem/81	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	93,256.00 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	10,481.00 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	512.72 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	1,992.80 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	3,653.50 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	5,689.40 µs
Commit remove f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	7,392.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	13,046.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	133,080.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	109,290.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	85,623.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	61,531.00 µs
Commit remove f(number clients)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	37,359.00 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/1002	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	132,180.00 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/2	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	691.10 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/202	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	27,519.00 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/402	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	54,011.00 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/602	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	81,330.00 µs
Commit update f(group size)/cs1/mem/802	📈 view plot ⚠️ NO THRESHOLD	106,920.00 µs

🐰 View full continuous benchmarking report in Bencher

[SimonThormeyer]

In my opinion we should consider using named_params!() for all new code (already in this PR it looks like it would have resulted in fewer opportunities of introducing errors in case of refactorings). It's not a blocker, though. Good job!