Implement dgst CLI command

[nhatnghiho]

Issues:

Resolves #CryptoAlg-3383

Description of changes:

Re-implement dgst cli commands with the following options:
-binary
-sha256 (and a handful of other digest algorithms)
-sigopt
-passin
-sign
-out
-verify
-signature
-keyform

Call-outs:

Waiting for #2555 to implement -passin

Testing:

How is this change tested (unit tests, fuzz tests, etc.)? Are there any testing steps to be verified by the reviewer?

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license and the ISC license.

[github-actions]

clang-tidy made some suggestions

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 58.59729% with 183 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.90%. Comparing base (154edc9) to head (8b97425).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
tool-openssl/dgst.cc	68.35%	75 Missing ⚠️
tool-openssl/dgst_test.cc	48.63%	75 Missing ⚠️
tool-openssl/test_util.h	6.66%	14 Missing ⚠️
tool/args.cc	12.50%	14 Missing ⚠️
tool-openssl/ordered_args.cc	77.27%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2638      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.81%   78.90%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         667      667              
  Lines      114088   114343     +255     
  Branches    16063    16107      +44     
==========================================
+ Hits        89923    90225     +302     
+ Misses      23390    23340      -50     
- Partials      775      778       +3     

☔ 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.

[smittals2]

just curious on reasoning here. Why do we want to do exclusive bool arguments at the parsing layer, as opposed to for example writing a func at tool level to validate parsed options?

[nhatnghiho]

Since the supported digest suite is fairly large, I think that doing it the parsing layer makes more sense. Otherwise, we'd need to 1) maintain a list of supported digests (in addition to the arg templates), 2) parse the arguments a 2nd time to get the digest names, and 3) check for mutual exclusivity. Computationally, it's the same amount of work either way but doing it at the parsing layer is much cleaner.

And since we're already relying on the kExclusiveBooleanArgument type for the parsing, might as well make it a util function rather than a one-off function in the digest tool. I thought it'd be useful in the future if we ever need to do handle multiple exclusive bool args again.