NIFI-9049 Replace localStorage with sessionStorage for Bearer Token

[exceptionfactory]

Description of PR

NIFI-9049 Replaces browser-based persistence of JSON Web Tokens in localStorage with a new nf.AuthorizationStorage component based on sessionStorage.

The current implementation relies on persisting an expiration timestamp along with the JSON Web Token, but the localStorage entry remains in the browser across multiple tabs and browser restarts. With the introduction of HTTP Session Cookies in #4988, this can result in the browser retaining the token in localStorage after the browser has removed the HTTP Session Cookie. This mismatch of persistence lifespan results in NiFi allowing access to the user interface, but denying access when open custom UI extensions of viewing provenance data content. Those user interface requests require the presence of the HTTP Session Cookie for access.

Changing the persistent storage approach ensures that both the HTTP Session Cookie and the sessionStorage contents will be removed when restarting the browser.

Changes in this Pull Request also include checking for the existence of the Authorization header in AccessResource.getAccessStatus(), and instructing the browser to remove the Session Cookie when the Authorization header is missing. Updating the nf-canvas.js loading process to call getAccessStatus() ensures that both the HTTP Session Cookie and the JSON Web Token from sessionStorage are present. This addresses scenarios where the browser may have the Session Cookie, but not have the token, which then redirects the browser to the login screen.

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.

[ChrisSamo632]

A look through the code appears sensible and the approach makes sense to me, however it probably makes sense for someone with more experience of the UI to take a look as well

I'll aim to try and build the branch and run some local tests later in the week

Is it worth making similar changes to the Registry UI to keep it consistent (even if currently it may not suffer the same problems)? Probably best as a separate Jira/PR

[exceptionfactory]

Thanks for taking a look at this @ChrisSamo632! Making changes to Registry would be helpful, and I agree that it should be handled in a separate issue. NiFi has incorporated several improvements related to authentication and authorization in recent pull requests, so these concepts could be brought together and integrated into Registry.

[ChrisSamo632]

I'll aim to try and build the branch and run some local tests later in the week

Done and it all looks good, thanks @exceptionfactory

[exceptionfactory]

I'll aim to try and build the branch and run some local tests later in the week

Done and it all looks good, thanks @exceptionfactory

Thanks @ChrisSamo632!

[thenatog]

Looks good, reviewed and tested. +1 will merge.

[exceptionfactory]

Looks good, reviewed and tested. +1 will merge.

Thanks @thenatog!