[normie3000]

This code looks like normal enterprise Java ugliness to me - I object to it on principle, but apart from having to pass ApiConfig when saving a user I probably wouldn't identify any of the official problems you listed without familiarity with the rest of the codebase.

[Izkata]

Same here... and funny enough the only thing that really looks wrong to me is they used "this" in only one of the two places they used "sessionProvider".

It's not a bug ("this" is implied, so it works just fine), but leaving it out hints to me that it was originally a third argument to "saveUser()", and either the original person writing this didn't have a solid API in mind or "saveUser()" was intended to also be static like "EmailUtil.sendEmail()" and it was switched around later on. Overall hints towards two conflicting styles in the same codebase and no good guidelines. Or maybe there are such guidelines (as hinted in the "solution"), and whoever updated this class only did it partway. This is the point where I'd poke around in the repo history to see why it's like this and whether anything should be changed further in either direction.

[jerf]

The "secret decoder ring" for this sort of question is that it's really "say something intelligent about this code that indicates you have real and good experience" even more so than "find the bug". So your answer would generally be off to a good start as well.

Given the Java code in question, while I understand the idea that "well, the session provider may just be hard coded" and such, I would definitely want to hear something about deficient exception handling. It's obviously an important part of the code and while I may not be able to spew out the exact correct exception handling without knowing more about the context and what exceptions may occur, it is obviously very wrong as written.