fix(invitation): remove user relation on invitation delete by whoAbhishekSah · Pull Request #1678 · raystack/frontier

whoAbhishekSah · 2026-06-05T10:42:06Z

What

Invitation creation writes two SpiceDB tuples anchored on the invitation object:

app/invitation:<id>#user@app/user:<email>
app/invitation:<id>#org@app/organization:<org>

Invitation.Delete filtered the relation delete by the org relation name only, so the #user tuple was left behind on every accept, expire, and delete. These orphan tuples accumulated in SpiceDB over time.

Fix

Drop the RelationName filter in Delete so it removes every relation anchored on the invitation object (the same pattern role.Delete already uses). Accept already routes its cleanup through Delete, so accept is covered too.

Test

Extends the existing TestInvitationAPI accept flow with an assertion that, after accepting an invitation, ListRelations returns no relation on the invitation object. Verified the assertion fails without the fix (leftover #user tuple) and passes with it.

Addresses gap (3) of #1661.

vercel · 2026-06-05T10:42:12Z

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
frontier	Ready	Preview, Comment	Jun 8, 2026 9:18am

coderabbitai · 2026-06-05T10:42:18Z

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: c7d1b1dc-c271-4afa-8a75-15638b49cdbe

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 47109aa and 51a4eb2.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

core/invitation/service.go
test/e2e/regression/api_test.go

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)

test/e2e/regression/api_test.go
core/invitation/service.go

📝 Walkthrough

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed an issue where some invitation-related data was not being fully removed when invitations were accepted, deleted, or expired, preventing orphaned records from remaining in the system.
Tests
- Added regression test to verify that all invitation-related data is properly cleaned up after acceptance.

Walkthrough

Broadened Service.Delete relation removal to target all relation tuples anchored on the invitation object (no RelationName), and added a regression test that asserts no SpiceDB relations remain for the invitation after AcceptOrganizationInvitation.

Changes

Invitation relation cleanup fix

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Service.Delete relation cleanup fix `core/invitation/service.go`	`Service.Delete` now calls `relationService.Delete` with only the invitation object (namespace and ID) and omits `RelationName`, so both `#user` and `#org` tuples anchored to the invitation are deleted. Inline comments explain `createRelations` writes both tuples and why omitting `RelationName` is required.
Invitation acceptance relation cleanup regression test `test/e2e/regression/api_test.go`	After `AcceptOrganizationInvitation`, the test queries SpiceDB via the admin client for relations tied to the invitation object and asserts the returned relations set is empty, ensuring no invitation-object tuples remain.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Suggested reviewers

rohilsurana
rohanchkrabrty

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

coveralls · 2026-06-05T10:48:32Z

Coverage Report for CI Build 27123722556

Coverage increased (+0.004%) to 43.414%

Details

Coverage increased (+0.004%) from the base build.
Patch coverage: 4 of 4 lines across 1 file are fully covered (100%).
No coverage regressions found.

Uncovered Changes

No uncovered changes found.

Coverage Regressions

No coverage regressions found.

Coverage Stats


Relevant Lines:	38073
Covered Lines:	16529
Line Coverage:	43.41%
Coverage Strength:	12.21 hits per line

💛 - Coveralls

Invitation creation writes two SpiceDB tuples on the invitation object: app/invitation:<id>#user and app/invitation:<id>#org. Delete filtered by the org relation name only, so the #user tuple leaked on every accept, expire, and delete, accumulating orphan relations. Drop the relation-name filter so Delete removes every relation anchored on the invitation object (same pattern role.Delete already uses). Adds an e2e regression assertion: after accepting an invitation, no relation remains on the invitation object. Refs #1661 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

whoAbhishekSah · 2026-06-08T09:25:13Z

Manual testing notes

Tested this against a local Frontier build of this branch (Postgres + SpiceDB). Summary below.

What an invitation creates

For each CreateOrganizationInvitation we confirmed it writes:

1 row in the invitations table (Frontier DB)
2 SpiceDB tuples on the invitation object:
- app/invitation:<id>#user@app/user:<email-slug>
- app/invitation:<id>#org@app/organization:<org-id>

What we tested

Created a fresh org and two invitations (one for each cleanup path), then checked the DB and SpiceDB before and after:

Delete path — called DeleteOrganizationInvitation. After delete: the DB row was gone and both the #user and #org tuples were removed.
Accept path — the invited user called AcceptOrganizationInvitation. After accept: the DB row was gone, both tuples were removed, and the user was correctly added as an org member.

In both cases SpiceDB had marked the tuples as deleted (it does a soft delete, setting a deleted_xid on the row rather than physically removing it), so they no longer show up as live relations.

Bonus: the bug was real

Before running anything, the test DB already had 2 leftover #user tuples with no matching DB row and no #org tuple — exactly the leak the old Delete produced. After the fix, no new orphans are created.

Note

This PR stops new leaks but does not clean up tuples that already leaked before the fix. Cleaning up existing orphans is a separate task.

✅ Working as expected.

vercel Bot deployed to Preview June 5, 2026 10:42 View deployment

whoAbhishekSah force-pushed the fix/invitation-relation-cleanup branch from 47109aa to 9860a1c Compare June 8, 2026 05:35

vercel Bot deployed to Preview June 8, 2026 05:35 View deployment

whoAbhishekSah marked this pull request as draft June 8, 2026 06:03

whoAbhishekSah force-pushed the fix/invitation-relation-cleanup branch from 9860a1c to 6ee0e73 Compare June 8, 2026 07:55

vercel Bot deployed to Preview June 8, 2026 07:55 View deployment

whoAbhishekSah force-pushed the fix/invitation-relation-cleanup branch from 6ee0e73 to 51a4eb2 Compare June 8, 2026 09:18

vercel Bot deployed to Preview June 8, 2026 09:18 View deployment

whoAbhishekSah marked this pull request as ready for review June 8, 2026 09:29

whoAbhishekSah requested a review from rohilsurana June 8, 2026 09:35

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix(invitation): remove user relation on invitation delete#1678

fix(invitation): remove user relation on invitation delete#1678
whoAbhishekSah wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/invitation-relation-cleanup

whoAbhishekSah commented Jun 5, 2026

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Summary by CodeRabbit

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Suggested reviewers

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

whoAbhishekSah commented Jun 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

whoAbhishekSah commented Jun 5, 2026

What

Fix

Test

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Suggested reviewers

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jun 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Coverage Report for CI Build 27123722556

Coverage increased (+0.004%) to 43.414%

Details

Uncovered Changes

Coverage Regressions

Coverage Stats

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

whoAbhishekSah commented Jun 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Manual testing notes

What an invitation creates

What we tested

Bonus: the bug was real

Note

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

vercel Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

coveralls commented Jun 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

whoAbhishekSah commented Jun 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading