[PM-18955] Improve performance of Billing invocations on Collections page

[jonashendrickx]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-18955

📔 Objective

• We can merge 3 calls to Stripe for the organization metadata endpoint by leveraging the expand property. This at the very least saves us a couple round trips. Reducing the latency from 750ms-1.3s to just 400-450ms.
• Reducing 1 call to the Pricing API can reduce the latency for getting a response back from the organization metadata endpoint by another 10-30ms.
• To check whether a payment method is configured we can use the customer.invoice_settings object. This allows us to avoid retrieving the payment method entirely in the front-end.

Tested with

• Marketing initiated trials
• Existing organizations

📸 Screenshots

Screen.Recording.2025-04-07.at.16.41.13.mov

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – a394ef5d-dd16-472b-b973-16c4e2956b61

Great job, no security vulnerabilities found in this Pull Request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 45.72%. Comparing base (0bad7a6) to head (f957a45).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ices/Implementations/OrganizationBillingService.cs	76.47%	0 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️
src/Core/Billing/Models/OrganizationMetadata.cs	50.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...g/Models/Responses/OrganizationMetadataResponse.cs	75.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/Core/Billing/Extensions/CustomerExtensions.cs	85.71%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5618      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   45.12%   45.72%   +0.59%     
==========================================
  Files        1565     1600      +35     
  Lines       71728    72609     +881     
  Branches     6424     6505      +81     
==========================================
+ Hits        32368    33198     +830     
- Misses      37983    37992       +9     
- Partials     1377     1419      +42     

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

🚀 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.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[amorask-bitwarden]

This looks good - thanks for making those changes. However, just as a heads up for future PR's, the reviewer is the one who should mark conversations as resolved.