Task/6-User feature set up

[benjaminnNgo]

Summary / Description

This PR covered:

• Set up the UserController and created a REST API as a proof of concept
• Created UserService
• Updated UserModel to complete version (up to the need for feature 1)
• Added codecov CI: this is an optional CI, but it is necessary to look at since we need to ensure code coverage of 100% as a requirement. In the future PR, codecov will comment on each PR and showing code coverage, something like this

Related Issues: #16

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Breaking Change
• Refactoring
• Documentation update

Test Evidence

Describe how this PR has been tested.

• Unit tests
• Integration tests

Questions / Discussion Points

List any areas where you’d like reviewer input or have open questions.

[codecov]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

ℹ️ You can also turn on project coverage checks and project coverage reporting on Pull Request comment

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[gloox]

I think the actual code is pretty good for a start. Looking at the tests though does make me wonder if we should create a convention for them. Particularly for naming them. It seems like the tests are mostly testing the happy paths, but for more exceptional paths, we could do names like "givenNullInput_whenCreateUser_returnError" so they're very small and easy to understand just by the name. I don't know how useful that naming scheme is for the happy paths though. For reference, I was mainly looking at 3.3 to 3.5 I think would be good to reference for our testing rules: https://www.baeldung.com/java-unit-testing-best-practices. @ACM02 @EricHodgson @lacernakate I can't @ niko for some reason. But I am curious what yall think.

[gloox]

getMethods_shouldReturnInitializedValues, setFirstNameAndLastName_shouldUpdateNamesIndependently, constructor_emailAndPasswordOnly_shouldInitializeLoginUserFields, constructor_allFieldsExceptId_shouldInitializeWithoutId

[gloox]

These are alternative names that follow the test naming convention. I know it's annoying but it is standard for a reason.

[gloox]

Also, if you look at the testing standards link that I sent. Using just Java assert is not reccomend. Use Assert.assertEquals instead of Java assert. This is because Java asserts can be disabled whereas the Junit versions always run in tests.