Fix IdentityProviderPolicy unlink rule

What does this MR do and why?

There was a problem with a rule in IdentityProviderPolicy. The usage of && is not allowed in a rule in declarative policy and can lead to wrong results.

The specs were not written correctly and therefore not failing.

Rather than fixing the policy, we can remove it because this policy class is used for abilities related to group-managed accounts, which has been EOL-d. See &8518

MR acceptance checklist

This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

• I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.

Related to #291007 (closed)

changed milestone to %16.3

added Deliverable SLOMissed backend devopsmanage groupauthentication and authorization [DEPRECATED] priority2 saml sectiondev severity2 typebug vintage workflowin dev labels

assigned to @jarka

marked the checklist item I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR. as completed

	2 Warnings
	a4bf84cc: The commit subject must contain at least 3 words. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.
	a4bf84cc: The commit subject must start with a capital letter. For more information, take a look at our Commit message guidelines.

	1 Message
	CHANGELOG missing: If this merge request needs a changelog entry, add the Changelog trailer to the commit message you want to add to the changelog. If this merge request doesn't need a CHANGELOG entry, feel free to ignore this message.

Reviewer roulette

Changes that require review have been detected!

Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
backend	Jason Goodman (@jagood) (UTC-4, 6 hours behind @jarka)	Laura Montemayor (@lauraX) (UTC+2, same timezone as @jarka)

Please check reviewer's status!

• Reviewer is available!
• Reviewer is unavailable!

Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.

Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

@jarka Some end-to-end (E2E) tests have been selected based on the stage label on this MR.

Please start the trigger-omnibus-and-follow-up-e2e job in the qa stage and ensure the tests in follow-up-e2e:package-and-test-ee pipeline are passing before this MR is merged. (The E2E test pipeline is computationally intensive and we cannot afford running it automatically for all pushes/rebases. Therefore, this job must be triggered manually after significant changes at least once.)

If you would like to run all E2E tests, please apply the pipeline:run-all-e2e label and trigger a new pipeline. This will run all tests in e2e:package-and-test pipeline.

The E2E test jobs are allowed to fail due to flakiness. For the list of known failures please refer to the latest pipeline triage issue.

Once done, please apply the emoji on this comment.

For any questions or help in reviewing the E2E test results, please reach out on the internal #quality Slack channel.

Allure report

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for a4bf84cc

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Plan        | 51     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 51    | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 20     | 0      | 0       | 1     | 20    | ❗     |
| Govern      | 36     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 36    | ✅     |
| Create      | 38     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 38    | ✅     |
| Manage      | 12     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 13    | ✅     |
| Verify      | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 165    | 0      | 1       | 1     | 166   | ❗     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

@jarka, please can you answer the question: Should this have a feature flag? to help with code review for the Authentication and Authorization group.

This nudge was added by this triage-ops policy.

@jessieay could you please review?

requested review from @jessieay

@jarka Because this bug is related to group-managed accounts and that is a deprecated feature (that we are actively removing code for), can we remove references to this policy rule rather than fixing it?

added 1 commit

• 98efd935 - Remove policies related to group-managed accounts

Compare with previous version

changed the description

changed the description

approved this merge request

requested review from @marc_shaw

@jessieay, thanks for approving this merge request.

This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.

For more info, please refer to the following links:

• rspec predictive jobs
• jest predictive jobs
• merging a merge request.