NIFI-16250 Treat an unconfigured SECRET_REFERENCE as unset

[mcgilman]

A SECRET property with no secret selected can be stored as a SECRET_REFERENCE carrying only a provider name. Both helpers relied on buildSecretKey, which never returns an empty string, so the select showed an unmatched key like "::Some Provider::" and hasPropertyValue reported the property as configured.

Both now check fullyQualifiedSecretName and secretName directly.

Summary

NIFI-16250

A SECRET property with no secret selected can be stored as a SECRET_REFERENCE
carrying only a provider name. fromValueReference and hasPropertyValue both
relied on buildSecretKey, which never returns an empty string, so the secret
select showed an unmatched key like ::Some Provider:: instead of its
placeholder, and hasPropertyValue reported the property as configured.

Both now check fullyQualifiedSecretName and secretName directly. A reference
carrying a secretName but no fullyQualifiedSecretName is still considered
configured.

Because PropertyGroupCard resolves hasValue through hasPropertyValue, the
configuration summary and connector details pages previously showed such a
property as having a value. They now show "No value set".

Verified with nx test shared (941 tests), nx lint shared, and nx build shared.

Tracking

Please complete the following tracking steps prior to pull request creation.

Issue Tracking

• Apache NiFi Jira issue created

Pull Request Tracking

• Pull Request title starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, such as NIFI-00000
• Pull Request commit message starts with Apache NiFi Jira issue number, as such NIFI-00000
• Pull request contains commits signed with a registered key indicating Verified status

Pull Request Formatting

• Pull Request based on current revision of the main branch
• Pull Request refers to a feature branch with one commit containing changes

Verification

Please indicate the verification steps performed prior to pull request creation.

Build

• Build completed using ./mvnw clean install -P contrib-check
  • JDK 21
  • JDK 25

Licensing

• New dependencies are compatible with the Apache License 2.0 according to the License Policy
• New dependencies are documented in applicable LICENSE and NOTICE files

Documentation

• Documentation formatting appears as expected in rendered files

[rfellows]

Will review

[rfellows]

Thanks for the contribution @mcgilman. This is a good catch/fix.