[akabiru]

Ticket

https://community.openproject.org/wp/COMMS-1067

• Stacked on [COMMS-1022] Journal work package labels #25320.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Deleting a label in Administration > Labels removed it from every work package without a trace. Each affected work package now gets an activity entry authored by the deleting admin, "Label removed: 'Frontend' was deleted", or "Label removed: 'Frontend', 'Backend' were deleted" when the same admin deletes several labels within the journal aggregation window. The entry carries no "Labels changed" line of its own; the removed labels are named in the cause.

Screenshots

Activity entry on an affected work package

What approach did you choose and why?

sequenceDiagram
  participant A as Admin in the labels administration
  participant C as Admin::LabelsController (destroy)
  participant S as Labels::DeleteService
  participant J as Labels::JournalizeDeletionJob
  participant CS as Journals::CreateService
  participant T as Activity tab

  A->>C: DELETE /admin/labels/:id
  C->>S: call
  S->>S: pluck labeled work package ids
  S->>S: destroy label (labelings cascade)
  S->>J: perform_later(work_package_ids, label_id, label_name, user_id)
  S-->>C: success
  C-->>A: redirect, flash "Successful deletion."
  J->>J: skip work packages whose journals already carry this label id
  loop each remaining work package, under its mutex
    J->>CS: call(cause: CausedByLabelDeletion(label_ids, label_names))
    alt same admin deleted another label within the aggregation window
      CS->>CS: aggregate into the previous entry, merge the label lists
    else
      CS->>CS: new journal with the cause and the current label snapshot
    end
  end
  A->>T: open an affected work package
  T->>T: render "Label removed: 'A', 'B' were deleted"
  Note over T: the "Labels changed" detail is hidden on this entry

Loading

The deletion itself stays synchronous and cheap; the journals are written afterwards by a job, since a label can sit on thousands of work packages. The cause carries the label ids and names because the rows are gone by then (the sprint migration cause snapshots a version name the same way). Writing through Journals::CreateService directly means no notifications go out for these entries, and the job is idempotent: one indexed lookup finds the work packages whose cause already contains the label id.

Merging consecutive deletions needed a small generic hook: a cause may declare that it extends the predecessor's cause (aggregatable_with? / aggregate_with, no-op defaults on CauseOfChange::Base), and the journal service then stores the merged cause on the aggregated journal. The labels detail is hidden only in the activities tab; the API still returns it. A manual label edit by the same admin inside the same window merges into the entry and is hidden with it, which is acceptable for an admin action.

AI involvement

Collaborative – AI generated a substantial part of the code; I reviewed and understand every line.

Merge checklist

• Added/updated tests
• Added/updated documentation in Lookbook (patterns, previews, etc)
• Tested major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, ...)

[github-actions]

Warning

Flaky specs

• rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/viewer/create_viewpoint_spec.rb[1:2:1:1]

🤖 Ask Copilot to investigate

Copy the prompt below into a new comment on this PR to delegate the investigation to GitHub Copilot. It will look into the flakiness and open a separate pull request with you as reviewer.

@copilot The following spec(s) are flaky in CI (first seen on PR #26191, linked for reference only):

- `rspec ./modules/bim/spec/features/viewer/create_viewpoint_spec.rb[1:2:1:1]`

Treat this as a standalone task, unrelated to PR #26191. Create a new branch from origin/dev and open a new pull request targeting dev — do not stack it on PR #26191 or reuse that branch.

Follow the playbook in docs/development/testing/handling-flaky-tests/README.md to find the root cause and fix the underlying race — do not skip, delete, or weaken the spec to make it pass; disabling is a last resort per the playbook, and only with a bug ticket. Verify the fix by running the spec(s) repeatedly (e.g. `script/bulk_run_rspec --run-count 10`).

If you cannot reproduce the flake or are not confident in a fix after reasonable investigation, do not fabricate a change or skip the spec to force CI green. Instead, leave the pull request in draft and document what you tried, the suspected cause, and any leads in its description, then assign @akabiru to take over.

Once the fix is verified, title the PR after the spec(s) it fixes, and use the PR description to explain the root cause, how the change resolves it, and the before/after results. Label the PR `flaky-spec`, assign @akabiru, and request a review from @akabiru.
On every commit, set @akabiru as the sole co-author with a `Co-authored-by:` trailer (use their GitHub no-reply email so it links to their account), so it is traceable who dispatched the fix.