996 feature deduct points when a daily task is cancelled

[EemeliJ]

Brief description

Adds a 10 point (regular) penalty when a player relinquishes an active daily task. The penalty is applied when unreserving, switching to another task, or deleting an owned task. Released tasks return to the pool as fresh tasks, and all cancellation changes run transactionally.

Change list

• Deduct TASK_CONSTS.POINTS.DAILY_TASK.CANCEL_PENALTY from regular player points.
• Clamp point deductions atomically at zero.
• Reset unreserved/switched tasks before returning them to the pool.
• Apply one penalty when switching from an active task to another.
• Add a cancellation specific delete flow for owned tasks.
• Preserve penalty-free task completion behavior.
• Add coverage for zero boundary, ownership, repeated/concurrent requests, rollback, switching, and deletion.

closes #996

[codecov-alt]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.73684% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/dailyTasks/dailyTasks.service.ts	96.87%	1 Missing ⚠️
.../rewarder/playerRewarder/playerRewarder.service.ts	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/dailyTasks/dailyTasks.service.ts	87.50% <96.87%> (+12.09%)	⬆️
.../rewarder/playerRewarder/playerRewarder.service.ts	97.14% <83.33%> (-2.86%)	⬇️

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[tickBit]

Just wondering, that should this be asynchronous return statement like this:

return await endTransaction(newSession, wasUnreserved);

I noticed, that elsewhere in the code base we have used statements like that.

[tickBit]

Similar as above.

[tickBit]

I think it would safer to use await in those return statements.

Please include also some output from testing the implementation.