You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Describe the current behavior #3467 merged support for deleting subscriptions owned by APIM products, but it did so in a way that results in a double DELETE HTTP request being sent.
It did this because it's easier to call next and delegate the tracking of the various delete states to ASO. But it would be ideal if there were a way to allow the extension to totally own the delete (thereby avoiding double-delete).
Describe the improvement @theunrepentantgeek suggested some sort of return-result paradigm where the extension could signal to the caller if it did or did not issue the delete (and possibly return a future to poll if it did, for LRO cases?), and then the ASO infrastructure could do the bookkeeping.
If we do the above, we should update the changes made in #3467 to move to a single delete. This has advantages for error reporting as well as API throttling.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
matthchr
changed the title
Prevent double-delete of APIM products
Extend delete extension point to more easily allow users to hook the actual delete entirely
Oct 30, 2023
Describe the current behavior
#3467 merged support for deleting subscriptions owned by APIM products, but it did so in a way that results in a double DELETE HTTP request being sent.
It did this because it's easier to call
next
and delegate the tracking of the various delete states to ASO. But it would be ideal if there were a way to allow the extension to totally own the delete (thereby avoiding double-delete).Describe the improvement
@theunrepentantgeek suggested some sort of return-result paradigm where the extension could signal to the caller if it did or did not issue the delete (and possibly return a future to poll if it did, for LRO cases?), and then the ASO infrastructure could do the bookkeeping.
If we do the above, we should update the changes made in #3467 to move to a single delete. This has advantages for error reporting as well as API throttling.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: