Feature/64 edit user profile

[dtnguyen22]

Related issue

Fixes #64

Type of Change

• Feat: Change which adds functionality/new feature
• Fix: Change which fixes an issue
• Refactor: Change which improves the structure of the code
• Docs: Change which improves documentation

Description

• This PR may be enough for a demo but too dogshit to be merged, need a lot of work to refactor, please give me some advice.
• This PR is not included UPLOAD function.
• Currently, this function allows user to edit their info: text fields in Build Edit Mode #37
• email & password are excluded due to some specific requirements (send email to verify new email, input password again to confirm).
• Only checks for truthy values, needs more data validation constraints such as length, complexity, format ...etc.

TODO:

• Maybe we need input type for Preference & Location? currently user.preference.gender, user.location.city ... are passed as String.
• Codes are too ugly, need to be refactored

Screenshot

Authorized user fetches their data

Successful attempt to edit user data

User data is updated

Unsuccessful attempt due to empty values, this needs more validation constraints as I stated above

Testing

Has this pull request been tested?

• Yes, please refer to the screenshots above.
  Please describe shortly how you tested it:
• Input all valid values
• Input some invalid values
• Input all invalid values

Note

The title of your PR should follow this format: [Type](area): Title

[vercel]

This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more).
To see the status of your deployment, click below or on the icon next to each commit.

🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/tuanthanh2067/seeksi/2Zdfxw18VC6sRRuWGDvJNhVypE9M
✅ Preview: https://seeksi-git-feature-64-edit-user-profile-tuanthanh2067.vercel.app

[oliver-pham]

Just some notes here. Any mutation response should follow a general/standard one (ref: #172) unless they need to add new fields.

[dtnguyen22]

I'll fix this in another issue

[oliver-pham]

longTerm and shortTerm are missing here, but that's ok. We can add them later.

[dtnguyen22]

According to the #37 there is no longterm or shortTerm field but yeah we can add it later

[oliver-pham]

Overall, great work 👏 ! I haven't reviewed your validation logic, but the code looks good. I like your idea of returning messages of which field is invalid. Feel free to create a separate issue for refactoring and merge this PR.