Guestbook ID over 127 could not be assigned to a Dataset via the API

[stevenwinship]

What this PR does / why we need it: Guestbook ID over 127 could not be assigned to a Dataset via the API

Which issue(s) this PR closes:#12556

• Closes Users cannot apply guestbooks with guestbookID greater than 127  #12556

Special notes for your reviewer:

Suggestions on how to test this: See issue for how to reproduce.
Create Datataverse. Create over 200 Guestbooks. Create Dataset under Dataverse. Try to assign a Guestbook with id over 127 to the Dataset.

Does this PR introduce a user interface change? If mockups are available, please link/include them here:

Is there a release notes update needed for this change?: included

Additional documentation:

[coveralls]

Coverage is 25.01% — 12556-can-not-set-guestbook-with-id-over-127 into develop. No base build found for develop.

[github-actions]

Test Results

404 tests  ±0   389 ✅ ±0   25m 47s ⏱️ - 11m 13s
 55 suites ±0    15 💤 ±0 
 55 files   ±0     0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit b8b68a6. ± Comparison against base commit e28af3f.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[github-actions]

📦 Pushed preview images as

ghcr.io/gdcc/dataverse:12556-can-not-set-guestbook-with-id-over-127

ghcr.io/gdcc/configbaker:12556-can-not-set-guestbook-with-id-over-127

🚢 See on GHCR. Use by referencing with full name as printed above, mind the registry name.

[qqmyers]

This appears to work and FWIW: it's something my IDE flagged as suspicious, suggesting Object.equals() as a null-safe approach. Since this use is getting real db objects guaranteed not to be null, .equals seems fine.

Out of scope- this loop seems to iterate over all available guestbooks just to assure this guestbook is allowed. I think that could be found more cheaply by looking at guestbook.getDataverse() and seeing if that's one of the recursive dataset.getOwner() s.

Since this is straight forward and I also QAed it ( using SELECT setval('guestbook_id_seq', 129, true); to cause my second guestbook to have id 130 rather than creating that many guestbooks), I'll put this in QA and see at standup if that's sufficient to merge it.