use helper function for UserSignup creation in verification tests

[MatousJobanek]

This PR replaces manual creation of UserSignups with helper functions from toolchain common.

Why?
My ultimate goal is to clean up the leftovers that stayed there after the migration of the naming format of UserSignups that happened a few years ago.

registration-service/pkg/signup/service/signup_service.go

Lines 557 to 575 in 690bb9c

	func (s *ServiceImpl) DoGetUserSignupFromIdentifier(cl namespaced.Client, userID, username string) (*toolchainv1alpha1.UserSignup, error) {
	// Retrieve UserSignup resource from the host cluster
	userSignup := &toolchainv1alpha1.UserSignup{}
	if err := cl.Get(gocontext.TODO(), cl.NamespacedName(EncodeUserIdentifier(username)), userSignup); err != nil {
	if apierrors.IsNotFound(err) {
	// Capture any error here in a separate var, as we need to preserve the original
	if err2 := cl.Get(gocontext.TODO(), cl.NamespacedName(EncodeUserIdentifier(userID)), userSignup); err2 != nil {
	if apierrors.IsNotFound(err2) {
	return nil, err
	}
	return nil, err2
	}
	return userSignup, nil
	}
	return nil, err
	}
	return userSignup, nil
	}

We don't use the sub claim (userID) for UserSignups for a few years, but most of the unit tests still do that. This change is to minimize the final PR(s) that will drop the usage & support of the UserSignups with names equal to the sub claim (userID).

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate failed

Failed conditions
33.0% Duplication on New Code (required ≤ 30%)

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[openshift-ci]

@MatousJobanek: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e	7f510c1	link	true	/test e2e

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[mfrancisc]

Looks good!
Thanks for cleaning it up.

I have only one minor comment/question.

[mfrancisc]

does this have the same effect as :

states.SetVerificationRequired(userSignup, true)

?
It looks like the latter sets the UserSignupStateVerificationRequired in the UserSignup.Spec.States and it doesn't update the conditions .

[mfrancisc]

minor and not related to this PR - also I found it a bit confusing at first to see the 0 value as parameter testusersignup.VerificationRequired(0)

[MatousJobanek]

Yeah, it's weird - I've created a PR to align the names a bit codeready-toolchain/toolchain-common#445

It looks like the latter sets the UserSignupStateVerificationRequired in the UserSignup.Spec.States and it doesn't update the conditions

you are right, the testusersignup.VerificationRequired updates also the conditions which wasn't done before, technically speaking, the UserSignup should look like that, so it's closer to the real scenario now.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: alexeykazakov, MatousJobanek, mfrancisc

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [MatousJobanek,alexeykazakov,mfrancisc]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment