UI: fix clone offering forms silently reverting user edits on services

[Pearl1594]

Description

This PR fixes: #14056

Types of changes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
• Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
• Build/CI
• Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Bug Severity

• BLOCKER
• Critical
• Major
• Minor
• Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

Network Offering clone:

1. Clone an existing isolated network offering, change say, userdata provider from VirtualRouter to ConfigDrive and submit. listNetworkOfferings on the result and confirm the new provider actually persisted.
2. Clone the same offering, leave services untouched, submit - confirm it clones same as source
3. Clone an NSX-backed offering - confirm services/providers stay greyed out and fixed, unaffected by any of the above.

VPC Offering clone:

1. Clone a VPC offering, edit Name/Display Text/Service Offering/Redundant Router, then change Network Mode (NATTED <->ROUTED) before submitting - confirm those edits survive
2. While in NATTED, check/uncheck a couple of services and change their providers, then flip to ROUTED and back to NATTED - confirm the edits to available services are preserved, and confirm mode-excluded services (SourceNat/StaticNat/Lb/PortForwarding/Vpn) are unchecked in ROUTED and require an explicit re-check after returning to NATTED
3. Submit after a mode change (as in test 2) and confirm the API payload doesn't include stale entries for services no longer shown in the form .

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 19.77%. Comparing base (44ab7dd) to head (a8e2be3).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main   #14062   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     19.77%   19.77%           
- Complexity    19989    19990    +1     
=========================================
  Files          6371     6371           
  Lines        575899   575923   +24     
  Branches      70495    70498    +3     
=========================================
+ Hits         113912   113917    +5     
- Misses       449563   449586   +23     
+ Partials      12424    12420    -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	3.53% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	21.05% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[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

[github-actions]

🔴 Test Coverage Grade: D — Marginal

Metric	Value
Line coverage	24.67%
Branch coverage	18.88%

Grade Scale

Grade	Line Coverage	Meaning
🟢 A	≥ 80%	Excellent - this code sleeps well at night 😴
🟡 B	60-79%	Good - almost there, don't stop now 😉
🟠 C	40-59%	Acceptable - your code is wearing a seatbelt, but no airbags 😬
🔴 D	20-39%	Marginal - boldly shipping where no test has gone before 🖖
⛔ F	< 20%	Failing - tests? what tests? 🔥

Branch coverage is shown as a secondary signal. Grade is determined by line coverage.
View full Actions run