Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Dont delete the entire channel when deleting a single content #12740

Conversation

thesujai
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

Force Delete should work as intended now. The node_ids and excluded_ids were not getting validated as the validate for grandparent(ChannelValidator) was invoked in DeleteChannelValidator instead of invoking validate for ChannelResourcesValidator which validates node_ids.
Due to this the deletion was solely based on channel_id only(as node_ids were passed as none in deletecontent command) and hence entire channel was getting deleted

References

Just a small regression introduced by #12680

Reviewer guidance


Testing checklist

  • Contributor has fully tested the PR manually
  • If there are any front-end changes, before/after screenshots are included
  • Critical user journeys are covered by Gherkin stories
  • Critical and brittle code paths are covered by unit tests

PR process

  • PR has the correct target branch and milestone
  • PR has 'needs review' or 'work-in-progress' label
  • If PR is ready for review, a reviewer has been added. (Don't use 'Assignees')
  • If this is an important user-facing change, PR or related issue has a 'changelog' label
  • If this includes an internal dependency change, a link to the diff is provided

Reviewer checklist

  • PR is fully functional
  • PR has been tested for accessibility regressions
  • External dependency files were updated if necessary (yarn and pip)
  • Documentation is updated
  • Contributor is in AUTHORS.md

@github-actions github-actions bot added the DEV: backend Python, databases, networking, filesystem... label Oct 23, 2024
Copy link
Member

@rtibbles rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense!

@rtibbles
Copy link
Member

@radinamatic @pcenov can you verify final fix of #12606 in this PR with no regressions?

@thesujai
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah 😆

@pcenov
Copy link
Member

pcenov commented Oct 24, 2024

Hi @thesujai and @rtibbles - no regressions observed while manually testing, good to go!

Copy link
Member

@rtibbles rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

QA approved!

@rtibbles rtibbles merged commit 51ee25c into learningequality:release-v0.17.x Oct 24, 2024
35 of 36 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
DEV: backend Python, databases, networking, filesystem...
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants