SNOW-1016470: Increase code coverage to at least 90% in JDBC

[sfc-gh-ext-simba-vb]

Overview

SNOW-1016470

Pre-review self checklist

• PR branch is updated with all the changes from master branch
• The code is correctly formatted (run mvn -P check-style validate)
• New public API is not unnecessary exposed (run mvn verify and inspect target/japicmp/japicmp.html)
• The pull request name is prefixed with SNOW-XXXX:
• Code is in compliance with internal logging requirements

External contributors - please answer these questions before submitting a pull request. Thanks!

1. What GitHub issue is this PR addressing? Make sure that there is an accompanying issue to your PR.

   Issue: #NNNN

2. Fill out the following pre-review checklist:

   • I am adding a new automated test(s) to verify correctness of my new code
   • I am adding new logging messages
   • I am modifying authorization mechanisms
   • I am adding new credentials
   • I am modifying OCSP code
   • I am adding a new dependency or upgrading an existing one
   • I am adding new public/protected component not marked with @SnowflakeJdbcInternalApi (note that public/protected methods/fields in classes marked with this annotation are already internal)

3. Please describe how your code solves the related issue.

   Please write a short description of how your code change solves the related issue.

[sfc-gh-snowflakedb-snyk-sa]

🎉 Snyk checks have passed. No issues have been found so far.

✅ security/snyk check is complete. No issues have been found. (View Details)

✅ license/snyk check is complete. No issues have been found. (View Details)

[gitguardian]

⚠️ GitGuardian has uncovered 4 secrets following the scan of your pull request.

Please consider investigating the findings and remediating the incidents. Failure to do so may lead to compromising the associated services or software components.

🔎 Detected hardcoded secrets in your pull request

GitGuardian id	GitGuardian status	Secret	Commit	Filename
16606334	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	ef4bbed	src/test/resources/wiremock/mappings/wif/azure/invalid_issuer_flow.json	View secret
16606335	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	ef4bbed	src/test/resources/wiremock/mappings/wif/azure/successful_flow_basic.json	View secret
16606336	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	ef4bbed	src/test/resources/wiremock/mappings/wif/azure/missing_sub_claim.json	View secret
16606337	Triggered	Generic High Entropy Secret	ef4bbed	src/test/resources/wiremock/mappings/wif/azure/missing_issuer_claim.json	View secret

🛠 Guidelines to remediate hardcoded secrets

The above secret(s) have been detected in your PR. Please take an appropriate action for each secret:

• If it’s a true positive, remove the secret from source code, revoke it and migrate to a secure way of storing and accessing secrets (see http://go/secrets-and-code). Once that’s done, go to the incidents page linked in the “GitGuardian id” column (log in using SnowBiz Okta) and resolve the incident.
• If it’s a false positive, go to the incidents page linked in the “GitGuardian id” column (log in using SnowBiz Okta) and ignore the incident.
• If you didn't add this secret - and only then - you may ignore this check as it's non-blocking. If you did add the secret and you ignore this check, you'll be assigned a "Security Finding" ticket in Jira in a few days.

Note:

• A secret is considered leaked from the moment it touches GitHub. Rewriting git history by force pushing or other means is not necessary and doesn’t change the fact that the secret has to be revoked.
• This check has a “Skip: false positive” button. Don’t use it. It will mark all detected secrets as false positives but only in the context of this specific run - it won’t remember this action in subsequent check runs.

If you encounter any problems you can reach out to us on Slack: #gitguardian-secret-scanning-help

---

^{🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.}

[sfc-gh-pmotacki]

Generally I don't see value in test of setters and getters.

[sfc-gh-pmotacki]

Should this test be uncommented or removed?

[sfc-gh-pmotacki]

These tests should be merged into one parametrized test.

[sfc-gh-ext-simba-vb]

Hi @sfc-gh-pmotacki, review comments have been addressed.