Remove XAML related modules and dependencies

adibmbrk commented 2 weeks ago

Proposed changes in this pull request

Removal of Entitlements Component
Removal of Policy Editor Component
Keeping abstract implementation of XACML Based Rule Handler in Provisioning Component
Removing Entitlements related features and stubs
Removing XACML related DB Scripts
Remove the usages of XACML scope validator

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.

CLAassistant commented 2 weeks ago

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

sonarcloud[bot] commented 2 weeks ago

Quality Gate passed

Issues
4 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 SonarCloud

codecov[bot] commented 2 weeks ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 39.87%. Comparing base (3f9afca) to head (dd271e8). Report is 115 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #6116 +/- ## ============================================ - Coverage 40.94% 39.87% -1.08% + Complexity 14607 14569 -38 ============================================ Files 1767 1746 -21 Lines 118050 118818 +768 Branches 19169 20766 +1597 ============================================ - Hits 48339 47377 -962 - Misses 62426 64224 +1798 + Partials 7285 7217 -68 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/wso2/carbon-identity-framework/pull/6116/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wso2) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unit](https://app.codecov.io/gh/wso2/carbon-identity-framework/pull/6116/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wso2) | `25.82% <ø> (+0.43%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wso2#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚨 Try these New Features: