## What

Add a search endpoint for users: `GET /api/v1/users?q=<query>`

## Why

Product requirement: users need to find teammates by name or email
from the invite dialog. Closes #142.

## How to test

1. Start the server: `npm run dev`
2. Open Postman or run:
   `curl "http://localhost:3000/api/v1/users?q=alice"`
3. Expect: JSON array of users whose name or email contains "alice"
4. Test empty query: `?q=` should return all users (paginated)
5. Test no match: `?q=xyzxyz` should return `{"users":[]}`

## Screenshots

Before: No search capability in invite dialog
After: [screenshot of search results appearing]

## Notes for reviewers

- The search is case-insensitive and uses ILIKE on Postgres.
- Rate-limited to 10 req/s per user to prevent abuse.
- Pagination is handled by the existing `?page=` and `?per_page=` params.

## Checklist

- [x] Tests added (see user.search.test.ts)
- [x] Documentation updated (API.md)
- [x] No console.log left
- [ ] Performance tested on large dataset (TODO in #143)

# Full diff of your PR against the base branch
git diff main...HEAD

# Or per-commit
git log main..HEAD --oneline
# abc1234 feat(api): add user search endpoint
# def5678 test(api): add tests for user search

git show abc1234
git show def5678

# Each line assigns a pattern to reviewers
# Last matching rule wins

# Global owners — review everything
*                       @org/core-team

# Frontend changes
src/components/**       @alice @bob
src/styles/**           @alice

# Backend API
src/api/**              @charlie @diana
src/database/**         @charlie

# Infrastructure
*.yml                   @devops-team
Dockerfile              @devops-team
terraform/**            @devops-team

# Documentation
docs/**                 @tech-writers
*.md                    @tech-writers

# After making the requested change:
git add src/api/users.ts
git commit -m "fix(api): add input sanitization per review feedback"
git push origin feature/user-search

# The PR page now shows the new commit
# Reviewer can see exactly what changed since their review

git fetch origin
git rebase origin/main
# Successfully rebased and updated refs/heads/feature/user-search.

# If there are conflicts:
# 1. Fix the conflicted files
# 2. git add <resolved-files>
# 3. git rebase --continue
# (git rebase --abort to cancel if needed)

# Force push after rebase
git push --force-with-lease origin feature/user-search

git fetch origin
git rebase origin/main
# CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/api/users.ts
# error: could not apply abc1234... feat(api): add user search endpoint

# Step 1: see what is in conflict
git status
# rebase in progress; onto def5678
# You are currently rebasing branch 'feature/user-search'...
#
# Unmerged paths:
#   both modified:   src/api/users.ts

# Step 2: open the file and resolve the conflict markers
# <<<<<<< HEAD  (this is the main branch version)
# =======       (separator)
# >>>>>>> your commit

# Step 3: after editing to the desired state
git add src/api/users.ts
git rebase --continue
# [detached HEAD e4f0a12] feat(api): add user search endpoint

# Step 4: push
git push --force-with-lease origin feature/user-search

gh pr create \
  --title "feat(api): user search [WIP]" \
  --body "Draft — seeking architectural feedback before finishing implementation" \
  --draft

# Convert to ready for review when done:
gh pr ready

# In PR description or commit message body:
Closes #142
Fixes #142
Resolves #142

# Multiple issues:
Closes #142, closes #167

# Cross-repo:
Closes org/other-repo#89

# Blocking (must fix before merge)
The password is logged here on line 42. This is a security issue —
please remove this log statement before merging.

# Suggestion (author's choice)
nit: This condition could be written as a single ternary:
  const label = isActive ? 'Active' : 'Inactive'

# Question (seeking understanding, not requiring change)
optional: Could we use an enum here instead of a string literal?
Just wondering if there was a reason for the string approach.

# Praise (also valid review content!)
Nice refactor — this is much easier to read than the old version.