fix: delete provisioned dashboard in unified if forceDeleteRules is set #113839
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
RafaelPaulovic
requested review from
academo,
owen-d,
radiohead,
toddtreece and
wbrowne
and removed request for
a team
stephaniehingtgen
previously requested changes
Nov 13, 2025
RafaelPaulovic
force-pushed
the
delete-provisioned-dashboards-us--with-forceDeleteRules
branch
from
733da2f to
baa284a
Compare
JohnnyQQQQ
reviewed
Nov 13, 2025
RafaelPaulovic
force-pushed
the
delete-provisioned-dashboards-us--with-forceDeleteRules
branch
from
baa284a to
74776b3
Compare
RafaelPaulovic
requested review from
JohnnyQQQQ,
grafakus and
oscarkilhed
and removed request for
a team
RafaelPaulovic
force-pushed
the
delete-provisioned-dashboards-us--with-forceDeleteRules
branch
from
74776b3 to
5c95d3c
Compare
RafaelPaulovic
added
no-backport
RafaelPaulovic
commented
Nov 13, 2025
mustafasencer
approved these changes
Nov 14, 2025
| GVR: gvr, | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) // Give provisioner time to process |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit - do we imperatively need this? We are already using EventuallyWithT just below for up to 10 seconds. Just saying because the folder integration tests already take a lot of time (+150s) to complete.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it's needed, other provisioning tests were doing and the EventuallyWithT together so I got it from there.
Removed
RafaelPaulovic
dismissed
stephaniehingtgen’s stale review
Outdated/addressed comment
RafaelPaulovic
deleted the
delete-provisioned-dashboards-us--with-forceDeleteRules
branch
Contributor
|
🚀 Your submission is now being built and packaged.
|
RafaelPaulovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2025
RafaelPaulovic
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2025
mdvictor
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2025
This was referenced Nov 24, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is this feature?
Matches behavior between legacy and unified storage delete path on legacy API when
forceDeleteRulesis set.Why do we need this feature?
To address data mismatches between storages when deleting provisioned dashboards.
Who is this feature for?
Grafana users that have provisioned folders and dashboards.
Which issue(s) does this PR fix?:
User cannot delete provisioned dashboards in unified when using forceDeleteRules=true , this is a mismatch of behavior with legacy and since we delete in legacy first then the mismatch occurs.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Please check that: