feat: adding workerManager parameter to createPolykeyAgent and createKeyManager

[tegefaulkes]

Description

#399 was not actually a problem, just a race condition in the logs since the two outputs were on stdout and stderr at exactly the same time. I checked and there was no issue. However I did discover that the WorkerManager was only set after starting up polykey. So anything such as KeyManager that used it during startup never had it. I've made some modifications to fix this. workerManager can be provided to createPolykeyAgent and propagated to the relevant domains. Ultimately the WorkerManager is started before PolykeyAgent now when doing polykey agent start. This should fix the order of the logs too.

Issues Fixed

• Fixes WorkerManager is being reported to be created **after** the agent is already started and reported its status #399

Final checklist

• Domain specific tests
• Full tests
• Updated inline-comment documentation
• Lint fixed
• Squash and rebased
• Sanity check the final build

[CMCDragonkai]

We will need to consider now with the speed up, whether it is worth it to send it to the workers for encryption tasks. The latency spent can be alot more than the time required to just compute the data. To do this, we will need to put rules of thumb thresholds into the code as constants. That is if we the encrypted data is > X bytes, then we send it to the worker.

However that's not really entirely consistent due to platform differences. So it may be better to do a sort of JIT. Where we measure the time to compute and the time to sent to worker and back, and then compare, and adjust this threshold accordingly.

We can test latency pretty easily regularly and we just need to compute things on the main thread or even in the worker thread and subtract the time...

[CMCDragonkai]

This is superseded by the work in #446. In there, the worker managers are still set dynamically but only used for certain things.

Furthermore, they can set as part of the creation routines, so that bootstrapping can make use of it.

This means, simply by changing up our order of bootstrap, this will be resolved. So I'm going to close this PR.