Update DevServices for Keycloak to create authorization policies

[sberyozkin]

Fixes #21040

This PR attempts to support running keycloak-authorization with DevServices for Keycloak without having to import a custom realm.
DevServices for Keycloak creates a default realm, client, users, roles when no custom realm is added. With this PR, authorization permissions will also be added, so given only a configuration like this one:

quarkus.keycloak.policy-enforcer.enable=true
quarkus.keycloak.devservices.authorization.paths.user=/api/users/me
quarkus.keycloak.devservices.authorization.paths.admin=/api/admin

quarkus-quickstarts/security-keycloak-authoroization-quickstart just works in the dev mode - a default user alice who has both admin and user roles can access both api/admin and api/users/me, while bob - with only a user role - can only access api/users/me.

@pedroigor, I've copied some code from integration-tests/keycloak-authorization/.../KeycloakTestResource to set up the basic permissions - for every configured role and path pair in quarkus.keycloak.devservices.authorization.paths this code is run, and more specifically this one (I'll clean it up a bit more - will try to generate unique names).

Now, starting quarkus-quickstarts/security-keycloak-authoroization-quickstart with the above configuration and mvn quarkus:dev produces:

Could not obtain configuration from server [http://localhost:32783/auth/realms/quarkus/.well-known/uma2-configuration].
	at org.keycloak.authorization.client.AuthzClient.<init>(AuthzClient.java:266)
	at org.keycloak.authorization.client.AuthzClient.create(AuthzClient.java:105)
	at org.keycloak.adapters.authorization.PolicyEnforcer.<init>(PolicyEnforcer.java:65)
	at io.quarkus.keycloak.pep.runtime.KeycloakPolicyEnforcerRecorder.createPolicyEnforcer(KeycloakPolicyEnforcerRecorder.java:101)

Pedro, can you help a bit and recommend what else may have to be added to the client registration code ? I guess I need to copy something else from KeycloakTestResource but I'm not sure what :-)

thanks

[pedroigor]

@sberyozkin Can we hold this one a bit? The reason is that make this happen is a bit too complex due to how you configure resources/scopes/permissions/policies.

Secondly, we are planning some changes next year in authz and this area is one we should focus more to improve. For instance, have a more easy/clear spec to configure things.

[gsmet]

@sberyozkin I'm leaning towards closing this one? WDYT?

[sberyozkin]

I'm going to close this PR for now