S24/sayi/add user management endpoints

[sthuray]

Notion ticket link

Ticket Name

Implementation description

• Changed UpdateUserDTO/UpdateUserDtoValidator so that users can update a user without providing every field
• If a behaviourist tries to update a user and they update a value that they don't have access to, entire request is invalidated

Steps to test

GET

1. No queries (get all users)

2. Query with both userId & email

3. Invalid userId

4. UserId not in database

5. Get with userId (successful)

6. Invalid email

7. Email not in database

8. Get with email (successful)

PUT:

1. (Behaviourist) userId not in database (similarly, test invalid userId)

2. (Behaviourist) Update only invalid fields

3. (Behaviourist) Update invalid & valid fields

4. (Behaviourist) Update valid fields

5. (Admin) Update all fields

DELETE:

1. Query with both userId & email

2. Query without parameters

3. Invalid userId

4. userId not in database

5. Delete user with "Active" status by userId/email

6. Delete Animal Behaviourist with "Inactive" status by userId

6. Invalid email

7. Email not in database

8. Delete volunteer with "Invited" status (by email)

9. Delete as a Behaviourist

What should reviewers focus on?

• Refactored try catch statements in PUT
• Set filtering for PUT
• Querying with a non-existent email doesn't return a NotFoundError (add this to emailService?)
• Querying with userId=10. gets through since Number(10.) returns 10, doesn't cause any problems, only visible when returning "userId 10. not found in database" (still checks database for userId 10 here)

Checklist

• My PR name is descriptive and in imperative tense
• My commit messages are descriptive and in imperative tense. My commits are atomic and trivial commits are squashed or fixup'd into non-trivial commits
• I have run the appropriate linter(s)
• I have requested a review from the PL, as well as other devs who have background knowledge on this PR or who will be building on top of this PR

[trinity-y]

looks good to me!!

[JustinScitech]

Tested out these endpoints. The changes look good to me. Should be good to merge.

[jerry-cheng5]

Great work! Just a couple minor things. fix them and you should be good to merge!

And I love the thoroughness you put into testing your endpoints :)

[laks0407]

Look good to me! Great work.