Fixes #38440 - Preserve candlepin content when deleting rolling repo clone with structured apt

[quba42]

Draft PR until I have added test coverage.

Summary by Sourcery

Prevent ContentDestroy for rolling structured APT repository clones and ensure content removal only applies to non-rolling structured APT or last-instance repos.

Bug Fixes:

• Skip Candlepin content deletion for structured APT repo clones in rolling content views by checking content_view.rolling? before planning ContentDestroy.

Tests:

• Add test to confirm content is destroyed for structured APT repository clones in non-rolling views.
• Add test to confirm content is retained for structured APT repository clones in rolling views.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide

This PR tightens the repository destroy action so that structured APT clones in rolling content views no longer trigger ContentDestroy, and adds unit tests to verify both the removal and retention behaviors.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Skip content destruction for structured APT repos in rolling views	Augment handle_custom_content condition to include !content_view.rolling? Wrap deb_using_structured_apt? check with rolling view guard Plan ContentDestroy only when structured APT and view is non-rolling	app/lib/actions/katello/repository/destroy.rb
Add tests for structured APT content removal and retention	Assert ContentDestroy is planned for structured APT in non-rolling views Refute ContentDestroy for structured APT in rolling views	test/actions/katello/repository_test.rb

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[quba42]

Added test coverage.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @quba42 - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

• The combined condition in handle_custom_content is a bit dense; consider extracting (repository.deb_using_structured_apt? && !repository.content_view.rolling?) into a well-named predicate method to improve readability.
• There's a typo in the test helper method refute_action_planed (should be refute_action_planned), which could lead to confusion or silent failures.
• Consider adding a test for a structured APT repo in a rolling view when remove_from_content_view_versions is explicitly set to true to ensure the removal flag overrides the rolling logic as expected.

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟡 Testing: 1 issue found
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[quba42]

Fixed rubocop/lint error.

[chris1984]

LGTM

[chris1984]

There's a typo in the test helper method refute_action_planed (should be refute_action_planned), which could lead to confusion or silent failures.

[quba42]

I found several more instances of refute_action_planed in the existing tests in this file. For now I have decided to fix them all as part of my commit.

Btw: Fixing these typos had no apparent effect on running the tests locally (still green and same number of passed assetions as before). It looks like both spellings are somehow understood?

If I should only fix the typo in my new test (but not the existing tests in the file) instead let me know.

[chris1984]

Left a few comments

[quba42]

In the hope of unblocking this PR: My gut feeling is that it is better to drop the fixup commit from this branch. My argument is mainly that I think this will make the history more readable (if we need to change the relevant lines 6 Months from now).

That being said, I don't feel very strongly about this, so if others disagree, I am fine with squishing things together and going with this version as well.

[m-bucher]

Comments have been addressed and code looks good to me.
@chris1984, @sjha4 any things left preventing this from being merged?

[sjha4]

Ack 👍🏼

Comments were addressed.