fix: API export CRD failure

[pragsty]

Issue

https://gravitee.atlassian.net/browse/APIM-12926

Description

Area	File	Change
Repository	JdbcUserRepository.java	In findByIds(Collection<String> ids), return Collections.emptySet() when ids is null or empty to avoid invalid SQL WHERE u.id IN ().
Service	UserCrudServiceImpl.java	In findBaseUsersByIds(List<String> userIds), return Set.of() when userIds is null or empty so the repository is not called with an empty list.
Export	ApiCRDExportDomainServiceImpl.java	In setMembersSourceId(), only set sourceId/source when a user is found (user != null) so group-only members without a user record do not cause NPE.

Screen.Recording.2026-03-18.at.10.20.59.PM.mov

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a potential failure in the API export CRD process by introducing robust null and empty collection checks across key user-related services. The changes prevent NullPointerExceptions that could arise from invalid or missing user identifiers, thereby improving the stability and reliability of the API management system, particularly during data export operations.

Highlights

• Defensive Programming: Implemented null and empty collection checks in JdbcUserRepository and UserCrudServiceImpl to prevent NullPointerExceptions when handling user ID collections.
• API CRD Export Robustness: Added a null check for user objects in ApiCRDExportDomainServiceImpl to ensure safe access to user properties during API CRD export, preventing potential failures.
• Test Coverage: Enhanced the test suite for UserCrudServiceImpl with new tests to validate behavior when findBaseUsersByIds receives null or empty user ID lists.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses a failure in the API export to CRD functionality. The core of the fix is adding a null check in ApiCRDExportDomainServiceImpl to prevent a NullPointerException when a user associated with a membership cannot be found. Additionally, the PR introduces defensive checks in JdbcUserRepository and UserCrudServiceImpl to gracefully handle null or empty collections of user IDs, which is a good practice. Corresponding unit tests have been added to validate this new behavior. The changes are sound and effectively resolve the reported issue. I have one suggestion to refactor the new tests for better conciseness.