Provide keyringName configuration to OIDC CredentialsProvider lookup

[ryandens]

Fixes #41265

• Removes redundant null-check on value returned by CredentialsProviderFinder.find(String)
• Modifies test to verify the appropriate keyring is provided to the CredentialsProvider test implementation
  • Took a slightly different strategy here than suggested in Quarkus OIDC CredenitalsProvider does not follow conventions of allowing a separate "bean name" and "keyring name" #41265, as concatenating the keyring name to the key would mean that the Map.get(String) call on this line would return null because the extension expects the map key to be the configured value for quarkus.oidc.credentials.client-secret.provider.key. Instead, we verify this functionality by only returning the stubbed secret in the Map if the keyring name matches our expectations. I think this is desirable as it more maps to how a production-like CredentialsProvider implementation would work.
• Modifies the OidcCommonUtils logic to use the configured keyringName, or null to look up the OIDC client secret from the CredentialsProvider, as suggested by @sberyozkin in Quarkus OIDC CredenitalsProvider does not follow conventions of allowing a separate "bean name" and "keyring name" #41265. I wasn't sure if we should instead access this optional value by wrapping the codeblock in a Optional.isPresent check, like we do for the provider key config item, but happy to follow the suggestions of the Quarkus team.
• Updates documentation to reflect the new config item required to use the OIDC extension with a CredentialsProvider

Let me know if there's anything else I can do!

[github-actions]

🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired.

[sberyozkin]

Thanks @ryandens, LGTM, can you please rebase to pick up the latest updates, like a Maven version bump to 3.9.8 ?
Please also squash, use the PR title if you don't mind as the single commit message
Thanks

[ryandens]

Thank you @sberyozkin! I believe I incorporated all your suggestions, I appreciate the help!

[sberyozkin]

Hi @ryandens A few more tiny suggestions are proposed and it will be ready to go, thanks

[sberyozkin]

LGTM, we can merge once a few more minor doc updates are applied

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus Documentation CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus Documentation CI on commit 114fd29.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

⚠️ There are other workflow runs running, you probably need to wait for their status before merging.

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus CI on commit 114fd29.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.

You can consult the Develocity build scans.