Skip RAR Feature Check When Authorization Details Are Empty

[VimukthiRajapaksha]

Proposed changes in this pull request

Currently, the system checks whether the Rich Authorization Requests feature is enabled, even when authorization details are empty. This PR improves the logic by skipping the check if authorization details are not available, ensuring unnecessary validations are avoided.

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.

[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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 14.28571% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 47.30%. Comparing base (d772b63) to head (4220ffc).
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ource/mgt/AuthorizationDetailsTypeManagerImpl.java	14.28%	3 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (14.28%) 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    #6565      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     47.30%   47.30%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity    15408    15400       -8     
============================================
  Files          1751     1751              
  Lines        105682   105689       +7     
  Branches      19960    19961       +1     
============================================
+ Hits          49990    49991       +1     
- Misses        48621    48624       +3     
- Partials       7071     7074       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	30.58% <14.28%> (-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.

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder started
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/13542127215

[jenkins-is-staging]

PR builder completed
Link: https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/13542127215
Status: success

[jenkins-is-staging]

Approving the pull request based on the successful pr build https://github.com/wso2/product-is/actions/runs/13542127215