fix: Raise 404 when multiple person found in /community/personal/

[kesara]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (4c396e6) 88.97% compared to head (051022d) 88.98%.
Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 051022d differs from pull request most recent head ebc0f61. Consider uploading reports for the commit ebc0f61 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
ietf/community/views.py	25.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7038   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.97%   88.98%           
=======================================
  Files         291      291           
  Lines       40717    40717           
=======================================
+ Hits        36229    36233    +4     
+ Misses       4488     4484    -4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[rjsparks]

We should either 404 with no decoration or use some other response. I'm not quickly coming up with a use-case for telling someone that the string entered matches multiple people is helpful.

[kesara]

Yeah! 404 page doesn't show any decorations. I'll remove error strings.

[jennifer-richards]

Would it make sense to push the MultiplePersonError -> 404 logic down into lookup_community_list()? Is it used anywhere that a 404 isn't the right thing to do?

(I'm not actually a fan of helper directly 404ing, but that's a bigger set of changes...)

[rjsparks]

Would it make sense to push the MultiplePersonError -> 404 logic down into lookup_community_list()? Is it used anywhere that a 404 isn't the right thing to do?

(I'm not actually a fan of helper directly 404ing, but that's a bigger set of changes...)

Yes, I think this would make sense, and it would obviate the need for the MultiplePerssonError exception in the first place - the utility could simply raise the 404 instead.

[rjsparks]

@kesara @jennifer-richards : Is this still something we wish to pursue?

[jennifer-richards]

@kesara @jennifer-richards : Is this still something we wish to pursue?

I think so, though I don't recall in detail the circumstances leading to it. I guess it's replacing 500s with 404s?

[edit] or I guess 300s with 404s, based on the test changes

[kesara]

@kesara @jennifer-richards : Is this still something we wish to pursue?

I think so, though I don't recall in detail the circumstances leading to it. I guess it's replacing 500s with 404s?

[edit] or I guess 300s with 404s, based on the test changes

@jennifer-richards, This was discussed on Slack.
Then, @rjsparks suggested returning 404 such cases.

[kesara]

OBE