Add multi-violation CEL integration tests for OIDCConfigRef and AuthzConfigRef

[ChrisJBurns]

Summary

Adds some extra test cases to the CEL scenarios

[ChrisJBurns]

@claude please update the pr description

[claude]

Claude finished @ChrisJBurns's task in 1m 18s —— View job

---

Updating PR Description

• Gather context
• Read changed files
• Update PR description — gh pr edit needs tool approval

The gh pr edit command requires approval from the tool permission system. Below is the proposed PR description — please approve the command or copy it manually into the PR body.

---

Summary

• CEL validation added in Add CEL validation to OIDCConfigRef and AuthzConfigRef union types #4299 can surface multiple rule violations in a single API response. This PR verifies that behaviour by adding integration tests that assert multiple violations are reported simultaneously — ensuring users see all their errors at once rather than one at a time.
• Extends mcpserver_cel_validation_integration_test.go with two new Describe contexts: OIDCConfigRef multi-violation CEL validation and AuthzConfigRef multi-violation CEL validation, each covering scenarios where conflicting field combinations trigger more than one CEL rule failure.

Type of change

• Other (describe): Integration test coverage for existing CEL validation behaviour

Test plan

• E2E tests (task test-e2e)

Changes

File	Change
cmd/thv-operator/test-integration/mcp-server/mcpserver_cel_validation_integration_test.go	Add multi-violation integration test cases for OIDCConfigRef and AuthzConfigRef

Does this introduce a user-facing change?

No

Generated with Claude Code

---

[jhrozek]

Reviewed the full changeset (49 lines, single test file). Tests are technically correct — all assertions match actual CEL rule behavior and will pass. The And(ContainSubstring(...)) pattern is the right Gomega idiom for order-independent multi-message checks, resource names are unique, and the file follows existing conventions.

Minor observations (non-blocking):

• The second OIDC test (oidc-inline-with-k8s, line 183) only triggers one CEL rule (the kubernetes rule), so it's a single-violation test in the multi-violation context — not incorrect, just mislabeled organizationally.
• The reverse AuthzConfigRef multi-violation direction (type=inline with only configMap set) isn't covered, but this is additive.

Neither is worth blocking on. LGTM.