95241 add 'no claim id' and BDD scenarios

[christinec-fftc]

Are you removing, renaming or moving a folder in this PR?

• No, I'm not changing any folders (skip to TeamSites and delete the rest of this section)
• Yes, I'm removing, renaming or moving a folder

Did you change site-wide styles, platform utilities or other infrastructure?

• No
• Yes, and I used the proxy-rewrite steps to test the injected header scenario

Summary

• Add the 'no claim id' and BDD scenarios to the confirmation page

team: @department-of-veterans-affairs/dbex-trex
toggle cleanup: department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#95247

Related issue(s)

department-of-veterans-affairs/va.gov-team#95241

Testing done

• Unit tests, manual and a11y tests completed, e2e successful
• Utilized mock up of the vets-api submission_status endpoint to return the no claim id scenario

Manual tests
No claim id scenario

1. enable flipper disability_526_new_confirmation_page
2. setup mock up api response for vets-api submission_status endpoint to return a successful response, but no claim id
3. create a new 526 claim with minimally required fields and submit the application
4. verify: confirmation page displays with all expected componets as per the mocks (success alert, claim summary, etc, etc). claim summary displays without claim id or claim id label

BDD scenario

1. similar to above, but start a BDD claim instead
2. verify similar components as above, with the addition of the BDD alert

Screenshots

1. No claim id

desktop	mobile

2. BDD and no claim id

desktop	mobile

What areas of the site does it impact?

526ez

Acceptance criteria

Quality Assurance & Testing

• I fixed|updated|added unit tests and integration tests for each feature (if applicable).
• No sensitive information (i.e. PII/credentials/internal URLs/etc.) is captured in logging, hardcoded, or specs
• Linting warnings have been addressed
• Documentation has been updated (link to documentation *if necessary)
• Screenshot of the developed feature is added
• Accessibility testing has been performed

Error Handling

• Browser console contains no warnings or errors.
• Events are being sent to the appropriate logging solution
• Feature/bug has a monitor built into Datadog or Grafana (if applicable)

Authentication

• Did you login to a local build and verify all authenticated routes work as expected with a test user

Requested Feedback

(OPTIONAL) What should the reviewers know in addition to the above. Is there anything specific you wish the reviewer to assist with. Do you have any concerns with this PR, why?