✨ [#1868] Implement Mijn vragen for companies

[stevenbal]

task: https://taiga.maykinmedia.nl/project/open-inwoner/task/1868

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (72bd3a2) 92.91% compared to head (904b902) 92.92%.
Report is 10 commits behind head on develop.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/open_inwoner/openklant/wrap.py	81.81%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #904      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    92.91%   92.92%   +0.01%     
===========================================
  Files          817      818       +1     
  Lines        28027    28212     +185     
===========================================
+ Hits         26041    26217     +176     
- Misses        1986     1995       +9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[stevenbal]

I moved the feature flag to toggle between RSIN/KvK to the OpenKlant config, so this PR is ready for review @alextreme @pi-sigma

[alextreme]

Looks good, nice work. @pi-sigma after your review I'll do a final check

[pi-sigma]

I wonder if some of the duplication in openklant.wrap could/should be removed, along the lines of the comment I left. Perhaps I've missed a reason for writing different functions that specifically work with bsn, kvk, and rsin. Otherwise looks good to me.

[pi-sigma]

• We're performing the same check in the list and detail view.
• The code for fetch_klantcontactmoment_for_bsn and fetch_clantcontactmoment_for_kvk_or_rsin in wrap.py is (almost?) identical, ditto for the list versions.

Perhaps we could make the function more generic, i.e. fetch_klantcontactmoment, which works with bsn, kvk, and rsin. We could perform this check and grab the relevant data in the KlantContactMomentBaseView and store it in the context as USER_IDENTIFIER, which could be bsn, kvk, or rsin. Then we could do kcm = fetch_klant_contactmoment(USER_IDENTIFIER).

[stevenbal]

you're right, it was a bit too much copy pasting. I modified it 904b902, I chose not to add the fetch parameters to the context data, because this check is also performed in another view (+ we don't want to expose things in context that we're not gonna use in our templates).