search

peeringdb / peeringdb

Server code for https://www.peeringdb.com/
BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License
340 stars 111 forks source link

Rename "soft deleted" objects when users 'claim' a net/org/fac/car/ix name of a soft-deleted object #1559

Open netravnen opened 2 months ago

netravnen commented 2 months ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Rename soft-deleted objects when a user tries to 'claim' an object name of a soft-deleted object.

Who is affected by the problem? Users hitting the error 'name already exists/name already exists'

What is the impact? More accurate object names for objects with status 'ok'

Are there security concerns? None

Are there privacy concerns? None

Describe the solution you'd like Renamed the soft-deleted object, append the soft-deleted objects id to its name. And allow the object with the status of 'ok' to take its name.

E.g. name: A, status: deleted,
name: B, status: ok,
name_change: A->A #1, B->A

Do you think this feature will require a formal design? no

Describe alternatives you've considered None

Could this feature request need support from the Admin Committee? None

What is the proposed priority? Simply urgent

Provide a rationale for any/all of the above Allow users to "reclaim" object names of deleted objects to avoid ("lessen") name-space collisions

Additional context None

jackcarrozzo commented 2 months ago

PC call: undeleting does happen sometimes, and a collision could occur there. More discussion required.

jackcarrozzo commented 2 months ago

PC call: admins can rename the obj - Arnold uses three stars.

netravnen commented 1 month ago

PC call: admins can rename the obj

@jackcarrozzo True. AC can rename obj. ⟶ Can you explain why I should then receive a user-generated ticket for a (IMO) low-hanging fruit that can lessen the amount of tickets AC receive?

What would be your argument against automating the above suggestion. That has potential to lessen the amount of tickets AC receive? (Albeit, I admit, the number is low, but there are still some)

martinhannigan commented 1 month ago

AC can use all the automation we can send to it. I’m +1 (missed call or would’ve added color).

Thanks

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:00 ch @.***> wrote:

PC call: admins can rename the obj

@jackcarrozzo https://github.com/jackcarrozzo True. AC can rename obj. ⟶ Can you explain why I should then receive a user-generated ticket for a (IMO) low-hanging fruit that can lessen the amount of tickets AC receive?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/peeringdb/peeringdb/issues/1559#issuecomment-2004317877, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQV7E6DQQ2GNO5RKDDLYY4FRXAVCNFSM6AAAAABD6ZLE7WVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMBUGMYTOOBXG4 . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

arnoldnipper commented 1 month ago

What would be your argument against automating the above suggestion. That has potential to lessen the amount of tickets AC receive? (Albeit, I admit, the number is low, but there are still some)

We do merger and unmerger. If you rename automatically that wouldn't work anymore. And name collisions don't happen that often. Hence, I would still leave it to AC to decide case by case together with the customer(s)

-1