Pick username java regex from alternative key

[RushanNanayakkara]

Proposed changes in this pull request

Pick the java username regex from key UserNameJavaRegEx if fails to read with key UsernameJavaRegEx.
The original issue reported was from a customer experiencing regex not being applied in IS 6.1.0. This is due to regex being read using UsernameJavaRegEx key for secondary user stores while it's stored using UserNameJavaRegEx.

While this issue is not reproducible in IS 7.0.0 since this validation is being handled by a different code base, the reported issue is fixed in public branch to avoid any issues if this code base is used in the future.

Fix involves using UserNameJavaRegEx as a fallback key if the key UsernameJavaRegEx fails to read the regex value.

This PR also adds unit tests for isMatchUserNameRegex function for secondary user stores.

Related Issues

• Self Registration Secondary Userstore username Regex Validation wso2/product-is#21639

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

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 50.46%. Comparing base (2630019) to head (df1b2e7).
Report is 7 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #881      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     50.45%   50.46%   +0.01%     
+ Complexity     2380     2375       -5     
============================================
  Files           297      297              
  Lines         17770    17774       +4     
  Branches       2517     2519       +2     
============================================
+ Hits           8965     8969       +4     
- Misses         7665     7667       +2     
+ Partials       1140     1138       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	37.93% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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.

[RushanNanayakkara]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 50.45%. Comparing base (2630019) to head (8f4c3b2).
Report is 4 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...y/recovery/signup/UserSelfRegistrationManager.java 50.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

The unit tests are added for 100% coverage with df1b2e7