Feat/get detailed door access

[pontussjostedt]

Lägger till en function som tar fram alla användare, som har någon typ av individuell access. Är tänkt att användas i frontenden senare för att underlätta för syrelsen att kolla vilka som har access.

Finns ett par problem för tillfället:

1. Känner inte att mitt testa är särskilt bra, känns som att det borde finnas ett bättre sätt
2. Borde det jag gjort finns I users eller access, smått oklart?
3. Jag har inte uppdaterat changeloggen :)

(behöver lite feedback :))

Anledningen till att querying behövs är att styrelsen vill veta vilka de har gett individuell access till och vill inte söka igenom alla namn en efter en.

[github-actions]

Coverage report

St.❔	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🟡	Statements	67.35%	1353/2009
🔴	Branches	44.49%	218/490
🔴	Functions	57.52%	241/419
🟡	Lines	67.12%	1284/1913

Test suite run failed

Failed tests: 2/238. Failed suites: 1/19.

  ● forget a user

    thrown: "Exceeded timeout of 5000 ms for a test.
    Use jest.setTimeout(newTimeout) to increase the timeout value, if this is a long-running test."

      317 | });
      318 |
    > 319 | test('forget a user', async () => {
          | ^
      320 |   const couldForget = await api.forgetUser(mockNewUser0.username); // How could you forget me?
      321 |   expect(couldForget).toBeTruthy();
      322 |

      at Object.<anonymous> (test/unit/user.api.test.ts:319:1)

  ● reset password properly

    thrown: "Exceeded timeout of 5000 ms for a test.
    Use jest.setTimeout(newTimeout) to increase the timeout value, if this is a long-running test."

      329 | });
      330 |
    > 331 | test('reset password properly', async () => {
          | ^
      332 |   await api.createUser(mockNewUser1);
      333 |   const token = await api.requestPasswordReset(mockNewUser1.username);
      334 |   const newPassword = 'Detta test skrevs på valmötet 2021';

      at Object.<anonymous> (test/unit/user.api.test.ts:331:1)

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from f950190

[github-actions]

I have deployed this PR to feat-get-detailed-door-access-ekorre.review.esek.se 🚀

[Muncherkin]

Fix lint and write the changelog. The tests that fail always fail so no worries there (I mean, some worries but separate issue). I'm unsure if the graph you wrote is the most useful solution. It might be more general to create an userWithIndividualAccess query that takes an optional user array as a parameter or queries all users if no user is sent as an argument. In any case, the implementation seems based and banger, do the lint and changelog fixes and consider the graph ❤️💅

[afroborg]

might be worth adding a test that adds a individualAccess and then checks that it actually is returned, that way it keeps it more contained to that specific test

[pontussjostedt]

You mean that I should just check that that one user is present?
Currently 'aa0000bb' "leaks" into the test and if our seeding data ever changes it will break the test.

So do you think it would be reasonable to remove the test checking all users and instead add 2 users; one with and one without individual access. After that check so only 1 of them is returned?

[afroborg]

fix the linting error

[afroborg]

looks good, added some comments to look into. as @Muncherkin said, update the changelog and version. also fix the linting.

[afroborg]

you can update the return type to use the built in prisma types:

Prisma.PrismaUserGetPayload<{
      include: {
        access: true;
      };
    }>[]

this way you don't have to explicitly typecast it

[afroborg]

remove unknown

[afroborg]

Update the version in package.json and package-lock.json to 1.6.0 as well

[afroborg]

resolve the conflicts and you are g2g

[github-actions]

I have removed this deploy now 😇