feat: Port no-policy ABAC feature from Go Casbin

[Copilot]

Ports the no-policy ABAC optimization from Go Casbin (#918) that allows matchers to evaluate purely on request attributes without iterating through policies.

Changes

• Core enforcement logic: Added regex-based detection to check if matcher references policy tokens (p_, p2_, etc.). When matcher only uses request attributes (e.g., r.sub == r.obj.Owner), skip policy iteration and evaluate once.

• Helper extraction: Created populateRequestParameters() to consolidate JSON parsing logic across policy and no-policy branches.

• Validation: Added check to prevent eval() usage when policies aren't loaded, matching Go Casbin behavior.

Example

// Model matcher: m = r.sub == r.obj.Owner (no policy token references)
const e = await newEnforcer('examples/abac_not_using_policy_model.conf', 'policy.csv');

// Pure ABAC - matcher evaluated once without iterating policies
const data1 = { Name: 'data1', Owner: 'alice' };
await e.enforce('alice', data1, 'read');  // true (alice owns data1)
await e.enforce('bob', data1, 'read');    // false (bob doesn't own data1)

Pattern detection handles multiple policy types via regex {pType}\d*_ with proper escaping to prevent injection.

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>[feature] Port no-policy ABAC feature to Node-Casbin and Casbin-Editor</issue_title>
<issue_description>Required by: casbin/casbin#918 (comment)</issue_description>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

• Fixes [feature] Port no-policy ABAC feature to Node-Casbin and Casbin-Editor #433

---

✨ Let Copilot coding agent set things up for you — coding agent works faster and does higher quality work when set up for your repo.

[CLAassistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}