Update SDK to reflect renaming on UnlockResponse.Status

[tmacam]

Description

PR dapr/dapr#4989 (issue dapr/dapr#4988) updated the names of some enums in UnlockResponse.Status ProtoBuff definition:

• LOCK_UNEXIST became LOCK_DOES_NOT_EXIST
• LOCK_BELONG_TO_OTHERS became LOCK_BELONGS_TO_OTHERS

Code in clients SDKs needs to be updated to account for this modification.

This PR accomplishes this by updating:

1. the generated gRPC Protobuf client and
2. the SDK code and tests.

Fixes dapr/dotnet-sdk#921

Issue reference

We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.

Please reference the issue this PR will close: #921

Checklist

Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list:

• [x] Code compiles correctly
• [x] Created/updated tests
• [x] Extended the documentation

[yaron2]

cc @halspang

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #924 (520f71f) into master (a57375f) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #924   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.89%   69.89%           
=======================================
  Files         154      154           
  Lines        5079     5079           
  Branches      549      549           
=======================================
  Hits         3550     3550           
  Misses       1398     1398           
  Partials      131      131           

Flag	Coverage Δ
net5	69.83% <50.00%> (-0.02%)	:arrow_down:
net6	69.79% <50.00%> (ø)
netcoreapp3.1	69.85% <50.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Dapr.Client/UnlockResponse.cs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/Dapr.Client/DaprClientGrpc.cs	86.88% <50.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[halspang]

@yaron2 - prefer the language here, but this is technically a breaking change. Syncing with @rynowak on what our process here is since this is an Alpha API.

[rynowak]

I think we have to plan-for/allow breaking changes to alpha APIs. This is part of the rationale for marking them [Obsolete]