Add info about dependencies when deleting collection

[Nitwel]

This PR introduces a warning showing the user in advance why the deletion process might fail.

Fixes #17536
Fixes ENG-701

[rijkvanzanten]

@Nitwel Do we know for a fact that the deletion will fail? Cause if that's the case, I'd rather just say "You can't delete collection this as other items are relying on it. Please delete the other collection first"

[Nitwel]

Good point, I went with that wording for now as I had the suspicion that DB vendors like SQLite might not support foreign key constraints.

[br41nslug]

It's working as advertised but I find the double popup on postgres a bit counter intuitive 😬 It feels a bit redundant to get a "confirmation" popup where you agree and then it doesnt delete it and you have to go back delete it manually anyway.

firefox_c9TG9fkCsQ.mp4

In sqlite it makes a lot more sense as it doesnt get constraint blocked. However both postgres and sqlite have issues with circular dependencies, that may be a separate issue.

firefox_U4NNA231a2.mp4

firefox_zre1R907X9.mp4

[Nitwel]

@rijkvanzanten Tim and I discussed that it might make more sense to not only warn the user that you might not be able to delete something but instead to delete the fields that the collection depends on first and then delete the collection, so you don't have to do that yourself manually. Thoughts?

[rijkvanzanten]

but instead to delete the fields that the collection depends on first and then delete the collection, so you don't have to do that yourself manually. Thoughts?

Yes 💯

[Zack-Heisnberg]

@rijkvanzanten Tim and I discussed that it might make more sense to not only warn the user that you might not be able to delete something but instead to delete the fields that the collection depends on first and then delete the collection, so you don't have to do that yourself manually. Thoughts?

it's should have a warning though that the data of that field will be lost

This collection " a " depends on the collection you want to delete " b " ,
do you want to delete the field and all it's data "x" in items in collection "a" to delete the collection "b"

[Nitwel]

Updated it to show a danger banner and to delete all fields it depends on first.

[paescuj]

Works as expected for collections with M2O fields 👍

Not sure about other types of relations, though. For example when deleting a collection included in a M2A relation it now deletes the item field in the junction table - this wasn't the case before:

[rijkvanzanten]

@br41nslug @paescuj Y'all happy?!!!!!

[rijkvanzanten]

This is one of those PRs that should've been there from the beginning. Thanks @Nitwel!

[paescuj]

@br41nslug @paescuj Y'all happy?!!!!!

Not yet, as outlined in #17961 (review).
I really think the item field shouldn't get deleted! Not sure if there are other cases like this, we need to test!

[Nitwel]

@paescuj I updated to only delete the item field in an a2o, when there is only 1 collection left, thus it is fine to delete it. Otherwise it won't be deleted.

[br41nslug]

Looks to be working as expected now on sqlite and postgres 😄

[paescuj]

@paescuj I updated to only delete the item field in an a2o, when there is only 1 collection left, thus it is fine to delete it. Otherwise it won't be deleted.

Okay, that already makes me much happier 👍 But I still think that there's no need to deleted this field at all. So the M2A field would remain usable in that you can simply connect a new collection (as it is the case now):

[Nitwel]

Agreed 👍
Updated it to only delete m2o relations.