feat(2589): soft delete unused asset

[lengyel-arpad85]

Soft delete asset including the Admin frontend part, by adding a deletedAt date and filtering get & getAll calls for deletedAt being NULL
This approach was adopted instead of hard delete since TigerBeetle has no support for deleting rows

Checklist

• Related issues linked using fixes #number
• Tests added/updated
• Documentation added
• Make sure that all checks pass
• Bruno collection updated

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for brilliant-pasca-3e80ec canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	bdc5e1b
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/brilliant-pasca-3e80ec/deploys/66525ff288f2810008a91358

[mkurapov]

My main question is, what should we do when we delete an asset, then try to re-create another one with the same code and scale (via createAsset mutation)?

Right now, we will get a "duplicate asset" error, but that might be a bit confusing given the asset isn't visible in the UI. Maybe we can just set deletedAt to be null again, and return the asset?

[lengyel-arpad85]

My main question is, what should we do when we delete an asset, then try to re-create another one with the same code and scale (via createAsset mutation)?

Right now, we will get a "duplicate asset" error, but that might be a bit confusing given the asset isn't visible in the UI. Maybe we can just set deletedAt to be null again, and return the asset?

yes, that might work, but if the scale is different from what we had before, do we just update the scale to the new one ?

[mkurapov]

@arpad-lengyel

yes, that might work, but if the scale is different from what we had before, do we just update the scale to the new one ?

An asset is unique on scale and code together, so that would signify a new/different asset

[lengyel-arpad85]

@arpad-lengyel

yes, that might work, but if the scale is different from what we had before, do we just update the scale to the new one ?

An asset is unique on scale and code together, so that would signify a new/different asset

@mkurapov It's an unused asset, so in theory it should not matter what the previous scale was, it was never used, so it won't have an effect on anything, no ?

[mkurapov]

It's an unused asset, so in theory it should not matter what the previous scale was, it was never used, so it won't have an effect on anything, no ?

Right, however I would say to be safe, we should treat e.g. USD/9 vs USD/2 as completely different assets (even if they have the same asset code). This is reflected in the DB as well:

rafiki/packages/backend/migrations/20210422194130_create_assets_table.js

Line 15 in 8835414

table.unique(['code', 'scale'])

[lengyel-arpad85]

It's an unused asset, so in theory it should not matter what the previous scale was, it was never used, so it won't have an effect on anything, no ?

Right, however I would say to be safe, we should treat e.g. USD/9 vs USD/2 as completely different assets (even if they have the same asset code). This is reflected in the DB as well:

rafiki/packages/backend/migrations/20210422194130_create_assets_table.js

Line 15 in 8835414

table.unique(['code', 'scale'])

yes, you are right, I've corrected the condition in my code

[mkurapov]

Looks good, just minor test comment