Sensu-go: sensuctl cannot delete users

[ccressent]

sensuctl cannot delete users, only disable them.

Expected Behavior

A user delete sub-command lets me completely remove a user from the system.

Current Behavior

There is no user delete sub-command.
All I can do is disable a user.

Additionally, sensuctl user disable shows a confirmation message about _deleting_ a user even though it only _disables_ it.

Possible Solution

1. Add a user delete sub-command, in line with most (all?) other resource types.
2. Make a DELETE on /users/{id} actually delete a user instead of disabling it.
3. Add a /users/{id}/disable endpoint to disable users (inverse of the existing /users/{id}/reinstate).

Steps to Reproduce (for bugs)

1. sensuctl user create test --password password
2. Try to completely remove that test user

Your Environment

• Sensu version: 5.0.1

[echlebek]

There is good reason to implement only soft deletes for users.

• Provides the ability to associate actions with accounts that are no longer enabled
• Gives a record of when a particular user account was disabled
• Prevents creating a new user over-top of an existing deleted user

[asachs01]

@echlebek I get the logic for not doing a hard delete, but in my head there's a very clear delineation between "disable" and "delete" and it seems that sensuctl conflates the two. Would it be possible to have an option for both?

[treydock]

Being able to fully delete would be beneficial to the sensu-puppet module. One thing we'd like to support is deleting unmanaged users and the way this is done in Puppet is using code that assumes the resource goes away when purged.

[ghoneycutt]

There are also times when you really want to delete a user, such as your automation script that went sideways and added a ton of bogus users. Or when you screw up a user and want to start from scratch. Disabling is not deleting. This will also impact organizations where the username might be recycled and re-enabling is giving permissions the new user should not have.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[echlebek]

@ccressent as the original filer, do you have any thoughts on this, now that's it been a while?

[ccressent]

I skimmed through the comments above, and my position is that this is still a valid issue given the number of thumb up reactions and more importantly for conceptual reasons that Aaron hinted at: disabling and deleting are 2 different things.

Eric raises concerns that are justified, but they can be alleviated:

There is good reason to implement only soft deletes for users.

• Provides the ability to associate actions with accounts that are no longer enabled

Internally, actions should be associated with a unique ID that represents the user rather than a name. Names can change; IDs never change and are never deleted.

• Gives a record of when a particular user account was disabled
• Prevents creating a new user over-top of an existing deleted user

With a system based on unique IDs, there is no problem with homonyms because the name is not what really identifies a user; the ID is. That let's you "delete" a user by removing the name <-> ID association, while still keeping the correct context in your logs (the user ID).

Would it be easy to implement those ideas in Sensu? I don't know. The real question in my mind is "Is it worth it?". But at this stage I'd argue we are in the territory of product decisions rather than engineering decisions :)