Wizard: Add firewall to Review step (HMS-5357)

[regexowl]

This adds a firewall expandable to the Review step.

JIRA: HMS-5357

[regexowl]

Rebased on #2767, so that will need to get merged first.

[regexowl]

/jira-epic HMS-5168

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.14%. Comparing base (73e7a51) to head (7dd94cd).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2769      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.09%   83.14%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         192      192              
  Lines       22275    22345      +70     
  Branches     2178     2190      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits        18509    18579      +70     
  Misses       3744     3744              
  Partials       22       22              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ents/CreateImageWizard/steps/Review/ReviewStep.tsx	95.18% <100.00%> (+0.30%)	⬆️
...teImageWizard/steps/Review/ReviewStepTextLists.tsx	95.27% <100.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 73e7a51...7dd94cd. Read the comment docs.

[avitova]

Also, as I am thinking about it, it might be nice to be able to just add a list of services, divided by some kind of separator. 🤔 But I assume this is MVP, and we still need to see if people are using this?:)

[avitova]

I feel like this was the intention. 🤔

Suggested change

	{firewall.ports ? firewall.ports.join(' ') : 'None'}
	{firewall.ports.length ? firewall.ports.join(' ') : 'None'}

[regexowl]

Indeed 😅 updated!

[regexowl]

Also, as I am thinking about it, it might be nice to be able to just add a list of services, divided by some kind of separator. 🤔 But I assume this is MVP, and we still need to see if people are using this?:)

Right, the steps are currently going through the UX review as well. cockpit-composer originally took just a string, I wanted to incorporate some kind of validation as well. But might try to address that in a follow up as I see how that might be really nice to have 🤔 maybe we can just split the entire input string and then just work with the items the same way we currently do?

[regexowl]

Oh wait, rebase is needed first 😳