[agrare]

Adding workflows-based reconfigure to Service also added checks that the service wasn't retired/retiring or hadn't been successfully provisioned.

[agrare]

ref

I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug in the original PR.

@Fryguy wanted to revisit this since you mentioned it might be a bug. I could see return false if !(provisioned? || provision_failed?) being a little too aggressive, but not allowing reconfigure on a retired service seems reasonable?

Do we want to allow reconfigure of a service which is currently being provisioned, or has failed to provision successfully?

[miq-bot]

Checked commit agrare@68e0f0c with ruby 3.3.12, rubocop 1.91.0, haml-lint 0.78.0, and yamllint 1.37.1
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 👍

[Fryguy]

Reading back, I'm honestly not sure what I was thinking. I think I was saying that this seemed to have introduced a "requirement" on lifecycle_state that didn't exist previously. If we expect that, then maybe we should have a non-null validation. or an enum validation on the column. Or, we code into the method an expectation of null and what that means. Either way, it feels like something is missing somewhere.

[agrare]

Hm there isn't a new requirement on lifecycle_state necessarily, just that you can't reconfigure a service that is e.g. retired or not provisioned yet. The previous tests were assuming that you could reconfigure a service in any state.