Fix serving runtime edit creation

[lucferbux]

Description

Closes #1259

How Has This Been Tested?

Regular creation

Test if an admin user can create a model server

1. Create a new project
2. Create a model server with authentication enabled
3. Create some secrets
4. Check that is working as expected

Edit user

Test if a user with edit permission can create a model server

1. Create a new project
2. Add a user without cluster permissions with edit role in the project sharing panel
3. Log in as this regular user
4. Create a new model server
5. You should see authentication disabled
6. You should be able to create a model server

Edit user edit project

Test if a user with edit permission can edit a deployed model server

1. Create a new project
2. Create a new model server with auth
3. Add a user without cluster permissions with edit role in the project sharing panel
4. Log in as this regular user
5. Edit the created model server
6. You should see authentication disabled
7. You should be able to edit and update the model server

Test Impact

All the coverage of the testing will be covered in the testing efforts for the model serving feature

Request review criteria:

• The commits have meaningful messages (squashes happen on merge by the bot).
• Included any necessary screenshots or gifs if it was a UI change.
• Included tags to the UX team if it was a UI/UX change.
• Testing instructions have been added in the PR body (for PRs involving changes that are not immediately obvious).
• The developer has manually tested the changes and verified that the changes work
• The developer has added tests or explained why testing cannot be added (unit tests & storybook for related changes)

[lucferbux]

@vconzola Let me know if this is the behavior you were expecting.
Also, no idea what to put in the warning, can you give me some feedback there?

[Gkrumbach07]

tested and admin regular user cannot use the checkbox

/lgtm

[DaoDaoNoCode]

lgtm

[vconzola]

@lucferbux I know we talked about keeping the warning, at least for now. But did we talk about the actual text of the message? Can you make it more specific and say, "Administrator permissions in this namespace are required to generate tokens." if that's technically correct. If that's not technically correct, what is?

[DaoDaoNoCode]

/hold

[lucferbux]

@vconzola Done, let me know what you think so we can merge it asap!

[lucferbux]

@DaoDaoNoCode can you re-review it once @vconzola take a look?

[lucferbux]

@kywalker-rh can you take a look please?

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: andrewballantyne, DaoDaoNoCode, Gkrumbach07

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 [andrewballantyne]

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

[andrewballantyne]

Any UX comments should be caught up after the fact. Today is release day, this doesn't need to wait.