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

fix: Drop support for retiring E-Commerce Service accounts #37

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 3, 2024

Conversation

fghaas
Copy link
Contributor

@fghaas fghaas commented Jun 27, 2024

This never worked, and can't ever work, due to limitations in the E-Commerce service itself.

Thus, rather than rely on whether ECOMMERCE_HOST is defined to decide whether the retirement pipeline for that service should be enabled, always disable it.

Also, update the README explaining that this plugin can't be used to retire E-Commerce accounts.

Fixes #36.

@fghaas fghaas requested a review from mrtmm June 27, 2024 13:42
@fghaas
Copy link
Contributor Author

fghaas commented Jun 27, 2024

@mrtmm Please review this in the context of the discussion in #36. :)

This never worked, and can't ever work, due to limitations in the
E-Commerce service itself.

Thus, rather than rely on whether ECOMMERCE_HOST is defined to decide
whether the retirement pipeline for that service should be enabled,
always disable it.

Also, update the README explaining that this plugin can't be used to
retire E-Commerce accounts.

Fixes hastexo#36.
Copy link

@MoisesGSalas MoisesGSalas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you think it makes sense to allow for a custom pipeline, maybe via a tutor patch?

@fghaas
Copy link
Contributor Author

fghaas commented Jun 27, 2024

Do you think it makes sense to allow for a custom pipeline, maybe via a tutor patch?

Not if it's for the purpose of supporting ecommerce. The discussion in #36 makes me think people shouldn't be touching it with a ten-foot pole, so I am much more comfortable with the idea of dropping support for it altogether.

@@ -3,13 +3,11 @@ client_secret: {{ RETIREMENT_EDX_OAUTH2_CLIENT_SECRET }}

base_urls:
lms: {{ "https" if ENABLE_HTTPS else "http" }}://{{ LMS_HOST }}
{% if ECOMMERCE_HOST is defined %}ecommerce: {{ "https" if ENABLE_HTTPS else "http" }}://{{ ECOMMERCE_HOST }}{% endif %}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not sure how important this is to the community, but if you remove this it may impact the ability to retire all of the Segment IDs. I've got doubts if anyone in the community is using ecommerce + segment + tutor, but thought I'd mention it.

tl;dr: ecommerce can maintain a separate user id just for interacting with Segment. If the retirement config sets fetch_ecommerce_segment_id to True and includes the Segment retirement step, the scripts will query Ecommerce for this id and the segment_api will retire it along with the other things that get deleted from Segment. This is what the ecommerce retirement API that we were looking at in the other issue handles.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bmtcril We maintain a community Tutor plugin here. If ecommerce is, as you say, in such a state that a reasonable Open edX community deployment shouldn't be using it at all, and the retirement pipeline for it is in such a state that there is effectively no retirement for ecommerce at all, then I don't see any impetus for a community plugin to support it. Much less support something related to the integration of that thing with a third-party service.

I'd much prefer we explicitly not support it, so that people who are brave (reckless?) enough to use ecommerce (with or without Segment) know that they're on their own as far as retirement for those services is concerned.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sounds good to me

Copy link

@mrtmm mrtmm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, thanks!
I am not sure what to think/do about the Segment ID's mentioned by @bmtcril. I guess we can address the potential issues if/when reported by users?

@fghaas fghaas merged commit 64dcfa3 into hastexo:main Jul 3, 2024
5 checks passed
@fghaas fghaas mentioned this pull request Jul 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ecommerce retirement fails
4 participants