Pass the assertion options to MSAL for ROPC call

[neha-bhargava]

#3207

• You've read the Contributor Guide and Code of Conduct.
• You've included unit or integration tests for your change, where applicable.
• You've included inline docs for your change, where applicable.
• There's an open issue for the PR that you are making. If you'd like to propose a new feature or change, please open an issue to discuss the change or find an existing issue.

Summary of the changes (Less than 80 chars)
Pass the assertion/ merged options to MSAL for the ROPC flow and make sure if forceRefresh is set the silent flow is skipped

Description

• Update the TokenAcquisition.cs to pass the ExtraQueryParams, ExtraHttpHeaders etc to MSAL from the mergedOptions and tokenAcquisitionOptions.
• Skip the silent call in case forceRefresh is set to true

Fixes #3207 (in this specific format)

[github-actions]

Summary

Summary

Generated on:	1/23/2025 - 6:21:31 PM
Coverage date:	1/23/2025 - 6:20:17 PM - 1/23/2025 - 6:21:28 PM
Parser:	MultiReport (2x Cobertura)
Assemblies:	0
Classes:	0
Files:	0
Line coverage:
Covered lines:	0
Uncovered lines:	0
Coverable lines:	0
Total lines:	0
Covered branches:	0
Total branches:	0
Method coverage:	Feature is only available for sponsors

Coverage

No assemblies have been covered.

[github-actions]

Summary

Summary

Generated on:	1/24/2025 - 5:22:33 PM
Coverage date:	1/24/2025 - 5:21:16 PM - 1/24/2025 - 5:22:19 PM
Parser:	MultiReport (2x Cobertura)
Assemblies:	0
Classes:	0
Files:	0
Line coverage:
Covered lines:	0
Uncovered lines:	0
Coverable lines:	0
Total lines:	0
Covered branches:	0
Total branches:	0
Method coverage:	Feature is only available for sponsors

Coverage

No assemblies have been covered.

[jmprieur]

LGTM
Thanks @neha-bhargava

[jmprieur]

quite a bit of copied/pasted code. It would be time to have a based class for the CCA AcquireTokenX builders :)

[neha-bhargava]

It would be time to have a based class for the CCA AcquireTokenX builders :)

I was looking to see if I can reuse the code but not everything is valid in this case. I agree that the code can be refactored. Thanks for reviewing.