fix(sct): Dont require Okta for commands which do not need it

[pehala]

• update-conf-docs, nemesis-list, create-nemesis-pipelines
• This is a hotfix and it is ugly, but for 3 commands no bigger effort is needed
• All the code was actually suggested and written by @fruch in Commands, which do not interact with cloud, require OKTA #10534 (comment)

Testing

• locally

PR pre-checks (self review)

• I added the relevant backport labels
• I didn't leave commented-out/debugging code

Reminders

• Add New configuration option and document them (in sdcm/sct_config.py)
• Add unit tests to cover my changes (under unit-test/ folder)
• Update the Readme/doc folder relevant to this change (if needed)

[fruch]

ugly is the new beautiful

doing better, is to completely regroup them differently, and that can't be done without change the command line, which I we don't want to do for this reason.

maybe we would be able to split and decorate each command with something, but that would also gonna be tricky and error prone (everyone adding a command would need to know all of the dependencies)

[fruch]

one more option, would be to move those commands out of sct.py, to their specific cli

which would be called like:

hydra python nemesi_cli.py ...

yet again, changing how the cli is gonna be called.

[pehala]

Yeah I agree, I also thought of some solutions, but none of them seemed to be worth it for this small change.

[fruch]

from new addition of command, we could consider separate modules

and that's looks interesting way add skip-able parts
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50883972/click-how-do-i-apply-an-action-to-all-commands-and-subcommands-but-allow-a-comm

[scylladbbot]

@pehala new branch manager-3.5 was added, please add backport label if needed

[pehala]

from new addition of command, we could consider separate modules

and that's looks interesting way add skip-able parts https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50883972/click-how-do-i-apply-an-action-to-all-commands-and-subcommands-but-allow-a-comm

Looks interesting, but I still feel this is too big of a solution for 3 commands, for a part of code which does not see many changes. I would keep the current solution and if we need to touch commands again in a bigger way we can include it there.