Declare workflow_state as child resource of workflow

[DarshitChanpura]

Description

workflow_state documents track the provisioning/execution state of a workflow template and have no independent access semantics, yet they are registered with the resource-sharing framework as a standalone type. Consequences:

• access to state documents does not follow the parent workflow's shares
• state documents written without an authenticated user in the thread context receive no sharing records at all (the security plugin's ResourceIndexListener cannot attribute them)

This declares parentType/parentIdField on the workflow_state provider so state documents inherit access from their workflow, via the workflow_id field already present in the state index mapping. Access evaluation in the security plugin delegates child→parent natively.

Related PRs

• Create parent-linked sharing entries for child resources written without a user security#6373 — needed for state documents written under system context to receive parent-linked sharing entries (integration-tested there via the sample plugin hierarchy)
• Same pattern as Declare report-instance as child resource of report-definition reporting#1213 (report-instance → report-definition)

Category

Bug fix

Testing

• compileJava + spotless pass; parent id field verified against mappings/workflow-state.json
• Child→parent inheritance semantics covered by security#6373 integration tests

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

✅ No TODO sections

🔀 No multiple PR themes

⚡ No major issues detected

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.50%. Comparing base (5ff55cd) to head (cab7562).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...amework/FlowFrameworkResourceSharingExtension.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (70.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #1455      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     78.57%   78.50%   -0.08%     
  Complexity     1315     1315              
============================================
  Files           106      106              
  Lines          6045     6047       +2     
  Branches        647      647              
============================================
- Hits           4750     4747       -3     
- Misses         1004     1010       +6     
+ Partials        291      290       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.