Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 97.29730% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.68%. Comparing base (3f18299) to head (8807895).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #203      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.70%   97.68%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1610     1645      +35     
==========================================
+ Hits         1573     1607      +34     
- Misses         37       38       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@m-goggins re question 1; this is accounted for in use case 12 of the MPI API design. My original thought was, let's make this an explicit DELETE rather than an implicit one. It's true that these old person clusters are orphaned and no longer in use, however we can not definitely say that the user's systems have purged all references to these clusters. By making it an explicit step to DELETE the orphaned person clusters, we have more trust that the user is doing the same with their references.

This isn't a hard requirement, nor am I married to that implementation. It may turn out that automatic cleanup is easier, or we could just provide a flag in the payload to indicate that automatic removal is preferred.

@m-goggins re question 1; this is accounted for in use case 12 of the MPI API design. My original thought was, let's make this an explicit DELETE rather than an implicit one. It's true that these old person clusters are orphaned and no longer in use, however we can not definitely say that the user's systems have purged all references to these clusters. By making it an explicit step to DELETE the orphaned person clusters, we have more trust that the user is doing the same with their references.

This isn't a hard requirement, nor am I married to that implementation. It may turn out that automatic cleanup is easier, or we could just provide a flag in the payload to indicate that automatic removal is preferred.

@m-goggins PR is looking great, thanks for all your work on this so far. I wanted to revisit the above with regard to auto removal of the person cluster when its empty. What do you think about updating the payload to accept a flag for this action? Do you think that would be helpful for users?

What do you think about updating the payload to accept a flag for this action? Do you think that would be helpful for users?

@ericbuckley That sounds like a good approach to me. I can make that change.