Introduce TeamSubscription.noMoreResources to be able to exclude TeamSubscriptions from bigger clusters

[geropl]

Description

This introduces a noMoreResources column on TeamSubscription that can be used to exclude it's members from receiving more-resources.

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #8472

How to test

• note how the unit tests are green.

Release Notes

NONE

Documentation

[geropl]

/werft run

👍 started the job as gitpod-build-gpl-8472-limit-res.2

Re-try certificate

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8608 (1f5faf3) into main (f141323) will decrease coverage by 1.13%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8608      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   12.31%   11.17%   -1.14%     
==========================================
  Files          20       18       -2     
  Lines        1161      993     -168     
==========================================
- Hits          143      111      -32     
+ Misses       1014      880     -134     
+ Partials        4        2       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
components-gitpod-cli-app	11.17% <ø> (ø)
components-local-app-app-darwin-amd64	?
components-local-app-app-darwin-arm64	?
components-local-app-app-linux-amd64	?
components-local-app-app-linux-arm64	?
components-local-app-app-windows-386	?
components-local-app-app-windows-amd64	?
components-local-app-app-windows-arm64	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
components/local-app/pkg/auth/pkce.go
components/local-app/pkg/auth/auth.go

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f141323...1f5faf3. Read the comment docs.

[jankeromnes]

Many thanks for the quick fix @geropl! 🚀

Code looks good to me, and the unit test adds a lot of confidence. Also, the migrated (empty) DB looks good. 👍

Still, I'd feel a bit safer testing this with an actual chargebee integration. Adding a hold in case you want to add an integration in this PR, but I'm also happy to fully test this on staging (i.e. please feel free to unhold 🚢).

/hold

[geropl]

/unhold

Still, I'd feel a bit safer testing this with an actual chargebee integration.

As this is only about how we interpret our own model I think it's fine, especially with the test.

@jankeromnes Need re-approval for the removed ?.

[jankeromnes]

Thanks, re-approved! 🚀

[jankeromnes]

Oh, oops -- Werft failed with:

src/chargebee/team-subscription-handler.ts(69,52): error TS2345: Argument of type '{ userId: string; paymentReference: string; planId: string; startDate: string; endDate: string | undefined; quantity: number; }' is not assignable to parameter of type 'Omit<TeamSubscription, "id">'.
  Property 'excludeFromMoreResources' is missing in type '{ userId: string; paymentReference: string; planId: string; startDate: string; endDate: string | undefined; quantity: number; }' but required in type 'Omit<TeamSubscription, "id">'.

[jankeromnes]

Still good to go! 🚀