[Tests-Only] Add some more flexible provisioning API tests for getUsers

[jasson99]

Description

Add some tests for provisoning API "get users" that do not require a user "admin" to exist.

Related Issue

• Enable OCS Provisioning API tests ocis#512

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Database schema changes (next release will require increase of minor version instead of patch)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Technical debt
• Tests only (no source changes)

Checklist:

• Code changes
• Unit tests added
• Acceptance tests added
• Documentation ticket raised:
• Changelog item, see TEMPLATE

[phil-davis]

IMO we don't want to have to keep changing core to keep track of failing tests in OCIS.
This should be added as comments in OCIS expected-failures file(s). See the existing comments in that file, and we can add to them.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #37882 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master   #37882   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     64.75%   64.75%           
  Complexity    19403    19403           
=========================================
  Files          1285     1285           
  Lines         75823    75823           
  Branches       1336     1336           
=========================================
  Hits          49096    49096           
  Misses        26333    26333           
  Partials        394      394           

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#javascript	54.06% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <ø> (ø)
#phpunit	65.93% <ø> (ø)	19403.00 <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3d91f79...db900e7. Read the comment docs.

[phil-davis]

@individual-it is my comment correct above ^ about putting the issue links into expected-failures?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #37882 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master   #37882   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     64.75%   64.75%           
  Complexity    19403    19403           
=========================================
  Files          1285     1285           
  Lines         75823    75823           
  Branches       1336     1336           
=========================================
  Hits          49096    49096           
  Misses        26333    26333           
  Partials        394      394           

Flag	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
#javascript	54.06% <ø> (ø)	0.00 <ø> (ø)
#phpunit	65.93% <ø> (ø)	19403.00 <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 640bba7...9884ec1. Read the comment docs.

[individual-it]

@phil-davis yes, as we have now the expected failures files in the other repos, I would agree to put the issue numbers there, specially if they change the line numbers in the tests