Introduce New Templates for Custom Authenticators

[Shenali-SJ]

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR introduces new JSON files related to custom authenticators. Three types of custom authenticators are introduced which will be grouped under a generic custom-authentication template.

Following are the template-ids of the newly added templates.

• custom-authentication (group)
• external-custom-authentication
• internal-custom-authentication
• twofactor-custom-authentication

The following is the proposed UI design that'd display the rendered content. This will be added to the product as a new connection.

Related Emails:
[Architecture] Facilitate user authentication via a external service (custom authentication extension)

Related Issue

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

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 45.65%. Comparing base (b492a3d) to head (0861eb8).
Report is 75 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #6226      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     45.66%   45.65%   -0.02%     
- Complexity    14040    14209     +169     
============================================
  Files          1632     1638       +6     
  Lines        100532   102651    +2119     
  Branches      17421    16959     -462     
============================================
+ Hits          45911    46865     +954     
- Misses        47931    48962    +1031     
- Partials       6690     6824     +134     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	28.40% <ø> (+0.10%)	⬆️

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.

[Thisara-Welmilla]

What is meant by this param. What are the other available categories

[Shenali-SJ]

Currently, all the available connections fall under the DEFAULT category. If we are introducing a new category with custom authentication, we would have to initiate that separately.

[Thisara-Welmilla]

What is meant by -1. What is purpose of this parameter

[Shenali-SJ]

This is to represent the order in which the card will be displayed on the connections page. -1 implies that the specific card would be skipped from the order by and will be displayed at the end of the list.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[sonarqubecloud]

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