Migrate SafeApp to zod

[hectorgomezv]

Summary

This migrates the validation of SafeApp to zod.

Changes

• Removes SafeAppValidator and associated schema.
• Adds SafeAppSchema and infers type(s) from it.
• Propagate required changes in codebase.
• Update associated tests.
• Changes iconUrl from string to string | null.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8265913486

Details

• 12 of 12 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• 17 unchanged lines in 7 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.4%) to 93.359%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/routes/transactions/entities/tests/human-description.builder.ts	1	80.0%
src/datasources/locking-api/locking-api.service.ts	1	93.33%
src/routes/recovery/guards/disable-recovery-alerts.guard.ts	2	92.86%
src/routes/locking/locking.controller.ts	2	88.24%
src/routes/recovery/guards/enable-recovery-alerts.guard.ts	2	92.86%
src/domain/locking/locking.repository.ts	4	66.67%
src/routes/locking/locking.service.ts	5	41.3%

Totals
Change from base Build 8263873168:	-0.4%
Covered Lines:	6330
Relevant Lines:	6546

---

💛 - Coveralls

[iamacook]

Outside of the scope of this PR but we need add this to the SDK.

[hectorgomezv]

Thanks for the suggestion @iamacook! I've committed it, in fact, I had the exact same code and relaxed the validation later (see this difff) because I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to validate the accessControl property in the CGW, as its logic is more on the Config Service. Adding a new AccessControl type there will break the validation in the CGW, and I think it shouldn't as the CGW doesn't own the logic for this property.

But I also think your suggestion is right since it should be tackled in a separate PR, and we are purely migrating the validation mechanism here 👍🏻

Thanks again!