When listing an organisation's users, if a user exists in FGA but not in SuiteCRM, stream the error to Sentry and return user list without that user

[simon-20]

Brief Description
When listing an organisation's users, if a user exists in FGA but not in SuiteCRM, an exception is raised, but it should return list without that user.

By raising an exception in this error state, the endpoint /reporting-orgs/{ID}/users will become unavailable until it is fixed.

It would be more robust to log an error to the app log and audit log, and then return a list of users for the organisation who are found in both the FGA db and SuiteCRM.

The relevant code is here:

register-your-data-api/src/register_your_data_api/routers/reporting_orgs.py

Line 505 in 52ed411

if user_ids_in_fga_not_suitecrm:

[simon-20]

@chrisarridge, what do you think about this? Do you think this would be the right move to allow a list to be returned when SuiteCRM / the FGA DB enter this error/inconsistent state? Or do you think it's best to raise the exception (as it does at the mo) and fail early, which is more likely to get reported, so we can fix.

[chrisarridge]

I think there is some general thinking to be done about SuiteCRM/FGA inconsistencies. However, here's my thought:

• When we return a list of users in the FGA database we need to call SuiteCRM to get names.
• If there is an inconsistency and we cannot get the name from SuiteCRM, maybe we return "Unknown User" as the name. IATI Account could then look for this and highlight it to the end user (so we can surface this quickly).
• But, I think we should be surfacing these in our own reporting - can we do this through Sentry, or use the Azure email client to email an alert to us?

[simon-20]

Yes, Sentry is a good call. I won't roll this into the PR for #80 but will create a new issue for adding Sentry, and link that here.

[simon-20]

Depends on adding Sentry to RYD API, which has an issue here: #27

[simon-20]

@chrisarridge, to decide: should we return the list without the user that is in an inconsistent state, or should we return that user with name of "Unknown User".

I'm open to either way. On the one hand, it would be good for IATI Account to have a way to know there is a problem (but maybe that's less of an issue once the errors are being streamed); on the other hand, I think it would be good to indicate that in an explicit way, rather than relying on a special value of the name field, which confuses the semantics of that field.