Add normalizedRequestURI and authorizedScopes to the thread local

[asha15]

Proposed changes in this pull request

This PR introduces the following enhancements to support fine-grained scope validation:

• ThreadLocal Enhancements: Added normalizedRequestURI and authorizedScopes to a ThreadLocal context to make them accessible during fine-grained scope validation in the SCIM layer.
• Authorization Valve Update: Modified the authorization logic to grant access if any of the required scopes is present, instead of requiring all scopes.

Related PR:

• Add Fine-Grained Scope Validation for SCIM2 Bulk API identity-inbound-provisioning-scim2#649

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

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 10.82%. Comparing base (20f7d7e) to head (4545d44).
⚠️ Report is 205 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...service/handler/impl/OAuth2AccessTokenHandler.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #319      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     10.84%   10.82%   -0.02%     
  Complexity       49       49              
============================================
  Files            36       36              
  Lines          1651     1653       +2     
  Branches        279      279              
============================================
  Hits            179      179              
- Misses         1458     1460       +2     
  Partials         14       14              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[piraveena]

what are we doing here?