Update sdk-internal CODEOWNERS to give more team ownership

[trmartin4]

📔 Objective

Makes several changes to CODEOWNERS to reflect maturity in sdk-internal code ownership and clarity of ownership definitions:

1. Changed joint ownership of the bitwarden-vault crate from team-platform-dev to team-sdk-sme.
2. Added non-Platform co-owners for all bw CLI folders, with all except Vault using team-platform-dev and Vault using team-sdk-sme, reflecting the change in item 1 above.
3. Moved bitwarden-crypto to be grouped with the other joint team-owned crates, as it felt the same as the others (currently shared, with a goal of team-owned), and therefore was OK to group together.

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation
  team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed
  issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[trmartin4]

❓ @withinfocus @Hinton bitwarden-crypto seems like an outlier here, which includes dept-architecture. is there a reason why it needs to be special? Could this be team-sdk-sme instead?

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – f5599816-0b8b-4a06-bea5-2c745a40b85c

Great job! No new security vulnerabilities introduced in this pull request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 78.10%. Comparing base (ae9b8b5) to head (bf555fa).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #495   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   78.10%   78.10%           
=======================================
  Files         283      283           
  Lines       27628    27628           
=======================================
  Hits        21579    21579           
  Misses       6049     6049           

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[dani-garcia]

Tools doesn't currently own any code on the SDK, so not sure we should be adding them to the CLI yet, not until they own the bitwarden-generators crate themselves at least.

[trmartin4]

👍 Would you say the same for Admin Console?

[dani-garcia]

Hmm I thought that AC was already partially owning the collections crate as the AC team had put some work on it, seems like I imagined it.

Yeah I think both tools and AC should be left out of the CLI until they own the crates that are used by the CLI. Once they are ready to own those, we can add them to the CLI too.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud