feat(gateway): block project deletion on secrets deletion #1338
Conversation
gateway/src/api/latest.rs
Outdated
| ) | ||
| }) | ||
| .map(|resource| resource.r#type.to_string()) | ||
| .collect::<HashSet<_>>() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may be a bit overkill (it needs to add a few Derive(Hash) annotations), there shouldn't be more than one of each resource, but we have seen that it can happen.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, it might be better to not dedup them here, so that the issue is not obfuscated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may be a bit overkill (it needs to add a few
Derive(Hash)annotations), there shouldn't be more than one of each resource, but we have seen that it can happen.
Not sure why it matters if there is more than one resource attached for checking if the project has resources.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll drop it, thanks!
oddgrd
force-pushed
the
feature/eng-1594-block-project-deletion-on-secrets-deletion
branch
from
d597007 to
faf1961
Compare
gateway/src/api/latest.rs
Outdated
| ) | ||
| }) | ||
| .map(|resource| resource.r#type.to_string()) | ||
| .collect::<HashSet<_>>() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, it might be better to not dedup them here, so that the issue is not obfuscated.
gateway/src/api/latest.rs
Outdated
| ) | ||
| }) | ||
| .map(|resource| resource.r#type.to_string()) | ||
| .collect::<HashSet<_>>() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This may be a bit overkill (it needs to add a few
Derive(Hash)annotations), there shouldn't be more than one of each resource, but we have seen that it can happen.
Not sure why it matters if there is more than one resource attached for checking if the project has resources.
oddgrd
force-pushed
the
feature/eng-1594-block-project-deletion-on-secrets-deletion
branch
from
13a9e85 to
51f20c8
Compare
oddgrd
deleted the
feature/eng-1594-block-project-deletion-on-secrets-deletion
branch
* feat(cargo-shuttle): project delete command * fix(cargo-shuttle): Refactor spinner, fix spam on service stop command * feat(gateway): delete container and volume, delete from db, bump bollard, layout for gateway endpoint * feat(gateway): add checks before project delete. fix stopping of running deployment. * feat(gateway): use status endpoint, check for 404's, delete custom domains, fix stop command (caveat in testcase) * fix(provisioner): validate project name * fix(provisioner): gracefully handle deletion of non-existent db * feat(gateway): project delete sqlx transaction * test(gateway service): add basic project delete tests * feat(gateway): block project delete on db or secrets (#1338) --------- Co-authored-by: Iulian Barbu <iulianbarbu2@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Oddbjørn Grødem <29732646+oddgrd@users.noreply.github.com>
Description of change
This is based on #1307.
This forces users to delete secrets from resource-recorder before they can delete a project.
How has this been tested? (if applicable)
With a local run of a project with secrets and postgres.