feat: add request reschedule API v2 endpoint

[PeerRich]

What does this PR do?

Adds a new POST /v2/bookings/:bookingUid/request-reschedule endpoint that allows requesting a reschedule for an existing booking, with an optional rescheduleReason message. This exposes the existing tRPC requestRescheduleHandler as a REST API v2 endpoint.

The endpoint cancels the current booking and sends the attendee an email with a link to reschedule.

Changes

• Input DTO (RequestRescheduleInput_2024_08_13): Optional rescheduleReason string field
• Output DTO (RequestRescheduleOutput_2024_08_13): Returns { status: "success" }
• Service method: requestReschedule() in BookingsService_2024_08_13 — validates booking exists, delegates to requestRescheduleHandler
• Controller endpoint: POST /:bookingUid/request-reschedule with BOOKING_WRITE permission, ApiAuthGuard + BookingUidGuard
• Platform-libraries: Re-exports requestRescheduleHandler from tRPC and reschedule email classes for use in API v2
• E2e tests: 4 test cases covering happy path with/without reason, rejected cancelled bookings (400), and non-existent UIDs (404)

⚠️ Items for reviewer attention

1. Type mismatch: requestRescheduleHandler expects NonNullable<TrpcSessionUser> but receives ApiAuthGuardUser. At runtime the handler only uses fields present on both types (id, email, locale, profile, uuid, username, timeZone, name, phoneNumber), but this is a compile-time type error. Note: the same pre-existing mismatch exists for confirmBookingHandler calls at lines 1232 and 1266 of the same service file.

2. Response does not include booking data: Unlike confirm/decline which return the updated booking, this endpoint returns only { status } because the underlying handler returns void. Should we fetch and return the (now-cancelled) booking for consistency?

3. Redundant booking lookup: The service checks the booking exists, but BookingUidGuard and the handler itself also look up the booking internally.

Mandatory Tasks (DO NOT REMOVE)

• I have self-reviewed the code (A decent size PR without self-review might be rejected).
• I have updated the developer docs in /docs if this PR makes changes that would require a documentation change. N/A — no doc changes needed.
• I confirm automated tests are in place that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.

How should this be tested?

1. Authenticate as a user who owns a booking (API key or OAuth access token)
2. POST /v2/bookings/{bookingUid}/request-reschedule with header cal-api-version: 2024-08-13
   • Body: { "rescheduleReason": "Need to move this meeting" } (optional)
3. Verify response: { "status": "success" }
4. Verify the booking status is now CANCELLED with rescheduled: true
5. Verify the attendee receives a reschedule request email with a reschedule link
6. Verify BOOKING_CANCELLED webhook is triggered

E2e tests included:

• Request reschedule with a reason → 200, booking cancelled with reason stored
• Request reschedule without a reason → 200, booking cancelled
• Request reschedule on already-cancelled booking → 400
• Request reschedule on non-existent UID → 404

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide
• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have checked if my changes generate no new warnings (note: pre-existing type warnings in this file)
• My PR is appropriately sized (8 files changed, 368 insertions)

---

Link to Devin Session: https://app.devin.ai/sessions/34dc36cca5a14662911130c2ea689d94
Requested by: @PeerRich

[devin-ai-integration]

🤖 Devin AI Engineer

I'll be helping with this pull request! Here's what you should know:

✅ I will automatically:

• Address comments on this PR that start with 'DevinAI' or '@devin'.
• Look at CI failures and help fix them

Note: I can only respond to comments from users who have write access to this repository.

⚙️ Control Options:

• Disable automatic comment and CI monitoring

[cubic-dev-ai]

No issues found across 6 files