feat(cli): Add prune confirmation.#3469
Conversation
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (6)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds interactive per-item prune-delete confirmation with skip/abort choices, a typed PruneSummaryResult enum (success/failure/aborted), a PruneStatusSkipped status with a skipped-by-user reason, and updates command flow and summary rendering to use the new typed API and executed flag. ChangesPrune interactive confirmation and typed results
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches📝 Generate docstrings
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces an interactive confirmation flow for the policy prune operation, allowing users to make granular decisions on which policy constructs to delete. It also improves the internal handling of operation results by introducing a dedicated enum, ensuring more robust and maintainable reporting in the CLI summary output. Highlights
New Features🧠 You can now enable Memory (public preview) to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. The policy tree is overgrown and tall, We prune the branches, one and all. But wait, confirm before you delete, To keep the data safe and neat. Footnotes
|
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces an interactive confirmation flow for pruning namespaced policies, allowing users to confirm, skip, or abort individual delete actions. It includes updates to the summary rendering logic to support a 'skipped' status and refactors the prune execution flow to handle these interactive confirmations. I have identified a high-severity issue regarding missing definitions for several interfaces and constants used in the new confirmation logic, which will cause compilation failures. Additionally, I recommend refactoring the error handling in the interactive commit flow to return errors to the caller rather than exiting directly within the helper function to improve testability and reduce code duplication.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@otdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_plan.go`:
- Line 30: Add the missing message constant corresponding to
PruneStatusReasonTypeSkippedByUser so it matches the existing pattern used for
other reasons; create a new constant (named consistently with the other message
constants, e.g., PruneStatusReasonMessageSkippedByUser) and assign it the
human-readable message for the "SkippedByUser" reason, then ensure any
switch/lookup that maps PruneStatusReasonType to message constants includes this
new symbol.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 112fc5ba-3aba-44de-80cf-482de83664af
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
otdfctl/cmd/migrate/prune/namespaced_policy.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_commit_confirmation.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_commit_confirmation_test.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_execute_test.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_plan.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_summary.gootdfctl/migrations/namespacedpolicy/prune_summary_test.go
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
elizabethhealy
left a comment
elizabethhealy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm! just left some nits
Benchmark results, click to expandBenchmark authorization.GetDecisions Results:
Benchmark authorization.v2.GetMultiResourceDecision Results:
Benchmark Statistics
Bulk Benchmark Results
TDF3 Benchmark Results:
|
|
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- ## [0.32.0](opentdf/platform@otdfctl/v0.31.0...otdfctl/v0.32.0) (2026-05-19) ### Features * **cli:** Add better unit testing. ([opentdf#3378](opentdf#3378)) ([3ad33dc](opentdf@3ad33dc)) * **cli:** Add interactive review for prune plans ([opentdf#3421](opentdf#3421)) ([c11680b](opentdf@c11680b)) * **cli:** Add prune confirmation. ([opentdf#3469](opentdf#3469)) ([c6d47ec](opentdf@c6d47ec)) * **cli:** Add prune planner. ([opentdf#3411](opentdf#3411)) ([3e294e6](opentdf@3e294e6)) * **cli:** Add prune summary information ([opentdf#3456](opentdf#3456)) ([c900c53](opentdf@c900c53)) * **cli:** add sensitive flag annotation to DocFlag ([opentdf#3457](opentdf#3457)) ([98f48d2](opentdf@98f48d2)) * **cli:** Confirm and execute pruning of legacy objects ([opentdf#3458](opentdf#3458)) ([24c09dd](opentdf@24c09dd)) * **cli:** Print report on failure ([opentdf#3365](opentdf#3365)) ([05a4473](opentdf@05a4473)) * **cli:** Sort parameters. ([opentdf#3478](opentdf#3478)) ([73ad878](opentdf@73ad878)) * **policy:** Add FQN to RegisteredResourceValues ([opentdf#3446](opentdf#3446)) ([3199583](opentdf@3199583)) * **policy:** Add resource mapping group FQNs ([opentdf#3447](opentdf#3447)) ([6a0b3c6](opentdf@6a0b3c6)) ### Bug Fixes * **cli:** Prune was not classifying multi-namespaced RRs properly. ([opentdf#3488](opentdf#3488)) ([eae8645](opentdf@eae8645)) * **cli:** support json profile output ([opentdf#3448](opentdf#3448)) ([61f194c](opentdf@61f194c)) * **deps:** bump github.com/opentdf/platform/lib/identifier from 0.3.0 to 0.4.0 in /otdfctl ([opentdf#3367](opentdf#3367)) ([aa23179](opentdf@aa23179)) * **deps:** bump github.com/opentdf/platform/protocol/go from 0.27.0 to 0.28.0 in /otdfctl ([opentdf#3419](opentdf#3419)) ([c80374f](opentdf@c80374f)) * **deps:** bump github.com/opentdf/platform/sdk from 0.16.0 to 0.17.0 in /otdfctl ([opentdf#3397](opentdf#3397)) ([bb9fcd6](opentdf@bb9fcd6)) * **deps:** bump go.opentelemetry.io/otel from 1.40.0 to 1.41.0 in /otdfctl ([opentdf#3400](opentdf#3400)) ([5631c37](opentdf@5631c37)) * **deps:** bump module protocol/go to v0.30.0 throughout ([opentdf#3459](opentdf#3459)) ([8eaa502](opentdf@8eaa502)) --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please). Co-authored-by: opentdf-automation[bot] <149537512+opentdf-automation[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Chris Reed <87077975+c-r33d@users.noreply.github.com>
2 participants
Proposed Changes
confirmthe deletion of a specific policy construct before executing the deletion. User is given the choice to:skip,abort,confirm.resultpassed into the summary from a string to enum.Checklist
Testing Instructions
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests