Persist OIDC claims before scope to claim mapping

[amanda-ariyaratne]

Proposed changes in this pull request

• With in-memory claim management, default claim dialects are managed in memory by default.
• OIDC scopes are stored in the database for each tenant and they are mapped to claims in the OIDC dialect. The scopes and their mappings are added to the database on tenant creation. If the OIDC claims are in memory and not persisted to the database, tenant creation fails.
• In order to maintain the OIDC scope to OIDC claim mappings, OIDC claims and their mapped local claims have to be added to the database during tenant creation.
• This PR adds the necessary claims to the DB, before the scope to claim mappings are added.

When should this PR be merged

[Please describe any preconditions that need to be addressed before we
can merge this pull request.]

Follow up actions

[List any possible follow-up actions here; for instance, testing data
migrations, software that we need to install on staging and production
environments.]

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 89.74359% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 55.88%. Comparing base (e69efc6) to head (1ce8cf2).
Report is 29 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...2/carbon/identity/oauth/OAuthAdminServiceImpl.java	85.18%	4 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #2595      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     55.85%   55.88%   +0.03%     
+ Complexity     8104     8093      -11     
============================================
  Files           632      632              
  Lines         46394    46339      -55     
  Branches       7838     7791      -47     
============================================
- Hits          25914    25898      -16     
+ Misses        16768    16733      -35     
+ Partials       3712     3708       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	38.64% <89.74%> (+0.13%)	⬆️

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.

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11397177319

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11397177319
Status: success

[jenkins-is-staging]

Approving the pull request based on the successful pr build https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11397177319

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11499320000

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11499320000
Status: failure

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11552556972

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11552556972
Status: failure

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11590718089

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11590718089
Status: success

[jenkins-is-staging]

Approving the pull request based on the successful pr build https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/11590718089