Update OpenRosa hash after deletion of property in ownerOnly entity list

[matthew-white]

Closes getodk/central#1849.

What has been done to verify that this works as intended?

I wrote a test that failed before the fix was made.

Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?

I tried to follow the current pattern. I just added the new audit log action to the list of actions in the query.

How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?

I'm pretty sure that this change only affects the OpenRosa hash. I'm adding a single, specific new audit log action, so I think the risk of regression is low.

Does this change require updates to the API documentation? If so, please update docs/api.yaml as part of this PR.

We don't seem to document that changes to the structure of the entity list (i.e., adding or deleting entity properties) changes the OpenRosa hash of the entity list. Given that, I don't think there are any API docs that this PR needs to patch, and we don't need to mention this change in the API docs changelog. We could document this effect on the OpenRosa hash, but it feels to me like too much of a detail and doesn't need to be documented.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:

• run make test and confirmed all checks still pass, or witnessed Github completing all checks with success
• verified that any code from external sources are properly credited in comments or that everything is internally sourced

[matthew-white]

@sadiqkhoja, I've tagged you for review, since you reviewed the related PR #1522.

[matthew-white]

@sadiqkhoja if you end up having time sometime next week to review this PR, that'd be awesome. I'd love to get this PR merged at some point soon. I have a follow-up PR planned to add a few more tests in this area.

[sadiqkhoja]

LGTM