NIFI-9038: Fix fingerprinting group access control policies for Remote Port

[naddym]

Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache NiFi.

Please provide a short description of the PR here:

Description of PR

Enables X functionality; fixes bug NIFI-YYYY.

In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:

For all changes:

• Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced
  in the commit message?

• Does your PR title start with NIFI-XXXX where XXXX is the JIRA number you are trying to resolve? Pay particular attention to the hyphen "-" character.

• Has your PR been rebased against the latest commit within the target branch (typically main)?

• Is your initial contribution a single, squashed commit? Additional commits in response to PR reviewer feedback should be made on this branch and pushed to allow change tracking. Do not squash or use --force when pushing to allow for clean monitoring of changes.

For code changes:

• Have you ensured that the full suite of tests is executed via mvn -Pcontrib-check clean install at the root nifi folder?
• Have you written or updated unit tests to verify your changes?
• Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 8?
• Have you verified that the full build is successful on JDK 11?
• If adding new dependencies to the code, are these dependencies licensed in a way that is compatible for inclusion under ASF 2.0?
• If applicable, have you updated the LICENSE file, including the main LICENSE file under nifi-assembly?
• If applicable, have you updated the NOTICE file, including the main NOTICE file found under nifi-assembly?
• If adding new Properties, have you added .displayName in addition to .name (programmatic access) for each of the new properties?

For documentation related changes:

• Have you ensured that format looks appropriate for the output in which it is rendered?

Note:

Please ensure that once the PR is submitted, you check GitHub Actions CI for build issues and submit an update to your PR as soon as possible.

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for addressing this issue @naddym! What do you think about adjusting some of the sample flow definitions to test this change?

[naddym]

Thank you @exceptionfactory for the review. I have made requested changes. Please let me know for anything further. Thanks again.

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for adding the unit tests @naddym! This looks close to completion, just wondering about the addition of flowfileConcurrency and flowfileOutboundPolicy elements in multiple test files. Were those changes necessary for the tests to pass?

[exceptionfactory]

Are these additional elements required for this change?

[naddym]

Thanks again @exceptionfactory for the review. No, those changes are not required. During development of flowfile concurrency feature for a process group, the flow configuration files weren't updated. I thought of adding those since I'm anyway modifying those files. Just updating the files to what it looks like today in flow.xml.gz as it also gets fingerprinted. I can revert back the change if it is not relevant to this PR. Please let me know

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for the confirmation @naddym, that's helpful to know. Leaving the changes seems acceptable, I just wanted to confirm that they weren't necessary for the fingerprint calculation.

Since the primary change is correcting the code to evaluate groupAccessControl properly, wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

[naddym]

Thanks @exceptionfactory. That was a valid question. I should have been more specific while describing the PR on additional changes. Will take care of it from next time. Thanks again.

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks again @naddym, looks good! +1 Merging.