[sso-admin] Implement DescribeAccountAssignmentCreation/DeletionStatus

[MauriceBrg]

• Implement sso-admin:DescribeAccountAssignmentCreationStatus
• Implement sso-admin:DescribeAccountAssignmentDeletionStatus
• Add missing CreationDate to the response of sso-admin:CreateAccountAssignment
• Update CreateAccountAssignment and DeleteAccountAssignment to return the underlying request ids and keep track of delete account assignments internally

It's my first PR in this repo and the scaffolding script suggested I run scripts/implementation_coverage.py to update the docs, but that changed things for lots of services, so I decided not to commit it. Let me know if I should add those changes.

• Feature is added
• The linter is happy
• Tests are added
• All tests pass, existing and new

[MauriceBrg]

Added the missing type annotations, on my machine the linter is happy now :)

[MauriceBrg]

@bblommers is there a way for me to trigger the pipeline again to verify that all the linters are happy now?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.23%. Comparing base (9aef694) to head (39a4e4a).
Report is 201 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7605      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.88%   94.23%   -1.65%     
==========================================
  Files         843     1072     +229     
  Lines       82578    92204    +9626     
==========================================
+ Hits        79178    86892    +7714     
- Misses       3400     5312    +1912     

Flag	Coverage Δ
servertests	29.47% <20.68%> (-3.05%)	⬇️
unittests	94.20% <100.00%> (-1.65%)	⬇️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[MauriceBrg]

Is there something I can do about the failed check @bblommers? If I understand it correctly the new tests cover the additional code 100%, but for some reason the total coverage is below target?

[bblommers]

Hi @MauriceBrg, the code coverage was due to an config issue on our side. This all LGTM - thank you for the PR!

[github-actions]

This is now part of moto >= 5.0.7.dev6