Add daita and multihop pages to the root of the settings view

[rablador]

Adds the new settings pages for both DAITA and multhop to the settings view.

---

This change is 

[linear]

IOS-922 Add DAITA page to the root of the settings view

[acb-mv]

Reviewed 44 of 61 files at r1, 20 of 20 files at r2, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @rablador)

---

ios/MullvadVPN/Coordinators/Settings/SettingsCoordinator.swift line 244 at r2 (raw file):

    /// - Parameter route: the route for which to request the new view controller or child coordinator.
    /// - Returns: a result of creating a child for the route.
    // swiftlint:disable:next function_body_length

Perhaps it's a good time to break this up into multiple functions and calling them, i.e.,

case .multihop:
    return makeMultihopViewController(tunnelManager:interactorFactory.tunnelManager)
case .daita:
  ...

[rablador]

Reviewable status: 43 of 70 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @acb-mv)

---

ios/MullvadVPN/Coordinators/Settings/SettingsCoordinator.swift line 244 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, acb-mv wrote…

Perhaps it's a good time to break this up into multiple functions and calling them, i.e.,

case .multihop:
    return makeMultihopViewController(tunnelManager:interactorFactory.tunnelManager)
case .daita:
  ...

Agreed

[buggmagnet]

The new images added for Daita and Multihop appear quite pixelated (especially the internet icon somehow)

Reviewed 40 of 61 files at r1, 15 of 27 files at r4, 10 of 14 files at r5, 6 of 10 files at r6, 1 of 1 files at r7, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 69 of 72 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acb-mv and @rablador)

---

a discussion (no related file):
We are using the incorrect image for the multihop illustration, this should be a phone, not a desktop

---

ios/MullvadVPN/Coordinators/Settings/SettingsViewControllerFactory.swift line 16 at r5 (raw file):

struct SettingsViewControllerFactory {
    /// The result of creating a child representing a route.
    enum MakeChildResult {

nit
If it's intended to be a Result, why not simply use the Swift.Result type ?
This would avoid leaking SettingsViewControllerFactory.MakeChildResult in SettingsCoordinator

[rablador]

Fixed!

Reviewable status: 68 of 72 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acb-mv and @buggmagnet)

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, buggmagnet wrote…

We are using the incorrect image for the multihop illustration, this should be a phone, not a desktop

Fixed!

---

ios/MullvadVPN/Coordinators/Settings/SettingsViewControllerFactory.swift line 16 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, buggmagnet wrote…

nit
If it's intended to be a Result, why not simply use the Swift.Result type ?
This would avoid leaking SettingsViewControllerFactory.MakeChildResult in SettingsCoordinator

Sometimes we return a viewcontroller, sometimes a coordinator. How would we help the compiler know which is which? I'm guessing that's why MakeChildResult was introduced in the first place (I simply refactored it).

[acb-mv]

Reviewed 3 of 21 files at r8, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 65 of 86 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @buggmagnet and @rablador)

---

ios/MullvadVPN/Coordinators/Settings/SettingsViewControllerFactory.swift line 16 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, rablador (Jon Petersson) wrote…

Sometimes we return a viewcontroller, sometimes a coordinator. How would we help the compiler know which is which? I'm guessing that's why MakeChildResult was introduced in the first place (I simply refactored it).

Not every result is a Result.

Another option would be to call it a MakeChildProduct or similar, omit .failed and wrap it in an optional or Result (or a throwing call) if it's failable

[buggmagnet]

Reviewed 3 of 10 files at r6, 21 of 21 files at r8, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @acb-mv)

[pinkisemils]

We should update the changelog here, otherwise looks good to me.

[rablador]

Done.

Reviewable status: 47 of 87 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @acb-mv and @buggmagnet)

[pinkisemils]

Reviewed 1 of 3 files at r11.
Reviewable status: 48 of 87 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @acb-mv and @buggmagnet)

[mojganii]

Reviewable status: 48 of 87 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @acb-mv and @buggmagnet)

[github-actions]

🚨 End to end tests failed. Please check the failed workflow run.