Add support for claim-wise uniqueness validation

[AfraHussaindeen]

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR enables flexible attribute uniqueness validation with per-claim configuration of validation scope.

Key Changes

• Claim-Wise Configurable Uniqueness Scope: Adds support for configuring uniqueness scope on individual claims.
• New UniquenessScope Property: Introduces a UniquenessScope property (enum values: NONE, WITHIN_USERSTORE, ACROSS_USERSTORES) to specify the validation scope within or across user stores. isUnique is no longer required but is retained for backward compatibility.
• Runtime Migration: Automatically adds UniquenessScope to claims with isUnique through these endpoints:
  • GET & POST /api/server/v1/claim-dialects/local/claims
  • GET & PUT /api/server/v1/claim-dialects/local/claims/{claim-id}
• Enhanced Validation Process: The event listener now references UniquenessScope; if isUnique is present but UniquenessScope is missing, it defaults to the server-level setting.

Related issue

• UI Improvement for Attribute Uniqueness Configuration product-is#21507

Checklist (for reviewing)

General

• Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
• Is the PR labeled correctly?

Functionality

• Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
• Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.

Code

• Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
• Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
• Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.

Tests

• Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
• If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
• If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?

Security

• Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
• Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
• Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
• Does all branching logic have a default case?
• Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
• Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?

Documentation

• Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes should be documented.
• Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented.
• Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 52.12766% with 45 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 41.05%. Comparing base (c0ba5cc) to head (257ab9b).
Report is 114 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...istener/UniqueClaimUserOperationEventListener.java	0.00%	32 Missing ⚠️
...rbon/identity/claim/metadata/mgt/dao/ClaimDAO.java	65.62%	8 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...identity/claim/metadata/mgt/dao/LocalClaimDAO.java	92.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6113      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     40.98%   41.05%   +0.07%     
- Complexity    14698    14736      +38     
============================================
  Files          1764     1772       +8     
  Lines        119164   120530    +1366     
  Branches      20860    21422     +562     
============================================
+ Hits          48836    49486     +650     
- Misses        63008    63678     +670     
- Partials       7320     7366      +46     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	25.23% <52.12%> (+0.22%)	⬆️

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

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

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
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

[pavinduLakshan]

Suggested change

	String query = SQLConstants.DELETE_CLAIM_PROPERTY_BY_NAME;
	try (PreparedStatement prepStmt = connection.prepareStatement(query)) {
	try (PreparedStatement prepStmt = connection.prepareStatement(SQLConstants.DELETE_CLAIM_PROPERTY_BY_NAME)) {

[pavinduLakshan]

Is this formatting intentional?

[pavinduLakshan]

Why can't we directly update instead of deleting and adding claim properties?