DT-945: Handle Update Study Registration Better

[rushtong]

Addresses

https://broadworkbench.atlassian.net/browse/DT-945

Summary

This PR makes some changes to the Update Study API to fix a few bugs. As a result of updating a production study (see DT-941), there was a non-trivial amount of hand-editing the JSON to get around incorrect validation rules. This PR fixes that to make updates a lot more smoother in the future.

• Phenotype is not a required field
• Data Custodian Email is not a required field
• If the consent group (i.e. dataset) is being updated:
  • All data use related fields are ignored
  • Access management changes are ignored
• If the consent group (i.e. dataset) is a new entity, all data use and access management values are preserved.
• Everything else provided in the study is valid for update.

---

Have you read CONTRIBUTING.md lately? If not, do that first.

• Label PR with a Jira ticket number and include a link to the ticket
• Label PR with a security risk modifier [no, low, medium, high]
• PR describes scope of changes
• Get a minimum of one thumbs worth of review, preferably two if enough team members are available
• Get PO sign-off for all non-trivial UI or workflow changes
• Verify all tests go green
• Test this change deployed correctly and works on dev environment after deployment

[rjohanek]

are data use fields an enum somewhere?

[rushtong]

Aha ... they are defined as static strings in DatasetRegistrationSchemaV1Builder, thank you! Will make that update.

[rjohanek]

this seems like a great improvement to make updating studies easier for users in the future!

[snf2ye]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around using GSON to convert between json and java objects, but as far as I can tell, LGTM!

[rushtong]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around using GSON to convert between json and java objects, but as far as I can tell, LGTM!

To be honest, this was super painful. If I were to re-implement this, I might choose a very different set of updates to support.