bug #930: added email property check, ensuring the correct response.

[dev-rahulbhadoriya]

Closes #930

Added a check for the email field. If the property is missing or not included in the request body, an error 400.23 ( propertyNotFound) will be returned.

{
    "message": "Could not find a property named 'email'",
    "code": 400.23,
    "details": {
        "property": "email"
    }
}

What has been done to verify that this works as intended?

Tested with postman.

Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?

How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?

Does this change require updates to the API documentation? If so, please update docs/api.md as part of this PR.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:

• run make test-full and confirmed all checks still pass OR confirm CircleCI build passes
• verified that any code from external sources are properly credited in comments or that everything is internally sourced

[matthew-white]

Thanks, @dev-rahulbhadoriya! I have a couple of small suggestions. First, I think we should use Problem.user.missingParameter instead of propertyNotFound. Currently, we only use propertyNotFound when validating the $select OData query parameter, where the Problem means "you specified a property that doesn't exist." In other cases, it's more common that we use missingParameter, which has more of a meaning of "you didn't specify a parameter that we expected."

It'd be great if you could also add a test to test/integration/api/users.js for the new behavior. The test could send a request without email, then assert that the resulting response body has correct values for code and details.

Also, just FYI, the project is going to be quieter for the next couple of weeks. You may find that additional review is delayed until 2024. Thanks again for submitting this PR!

[dev-rahulbhadoriya]

@matthew-white , thanks for the suggestions and for reviewing my PR. I have corrected the code and added a test case for it. Kindly check and review it

[matthew-white]

Sorry for the long delay on review! This is looking great. I'll go ahead and merge now. Thank you for the PR, @dev-rahulbhadoriya!