Protected containers: Remove field "Minimum access level for delete"

• Please check this box if this contribution uses AI-generated content (including content generated by GitLab Duo features) as outlined in the GitLab DCO & CLA. As a benefit of being a GitLab Community Contributor, you can request access to GitLab Duo.

What does this MR do and why?

Protected containers: Remove field "Minimum access level for delete"

• During rollout of the feature "Protected containers", we noticed that the field "Minimum access level for delete" is visible, but the aspect delete protection has not been implemented yet; therefore, the existence / visibility of the field "Minimum access level for delete" might lead to unnecessary confusion.
• This MR intends to remove the field "Minimum access level for delete" from the frontend as suggested here: #480385 (comment 2193605295)

with at Siemens

References

Please include cross links to any resources that are relevant to this MR This will give reviewers and future readers helpful context to give an efficient review of the changes introduced.

MR acceptance checklist

Please evaluate this MR against the MR acceptance checklist. It helps you analyze changes to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

MR Checklist (@gerardo-navarro)

• Changelog entry added, if necessary
• Documentation created/updated via this MR
• Documentation reviewed by technical writer or follow-up review issue created
• Tests added for this feature/bug
• Tested in all supported browsers
• Conforms to the code review guidelines
• Conforms to the merge request performance guidelines
• Conforms to the style guides
• Conforms to the javascript style guides
• Conforms to the database guides

Screenshots or screen recordings

This MR removes the field Minimum access level for delete because the delete protection feature is not implemented yet.

Before	After

How to set up and validate locally

1. Go to the registry settings of a project: http://gdk.test:3000/flightjs/Flight/-/settings/packages_and_registries

Related to #480385 (closed)

added devopspackage groupcontainer registry sectionci typefeature labels

added pipelinetier-1 label

added Leading Organization label

added Leading Organization label

Thanks for your contribution to GitLab @gerardo-navarro!

• If you need help, page a coach by clicking here or come say hi on Discord.
• When you're ready, request a review by clicking here.
• We welcome AI-generated contributions and offer complimentary access to GitLab Duo! Check out the top of the merge request description to learn more about using AI while contributing.
• To add labels to your merge request, comment @gitlab-bot label ~"label1" ~"label2".

This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

added Community contribution workflowin dev labels

assigned to @gerardo-navarro

changed the description

	2 Warnings
	This merge request does not refer to an existing milestone.
	Labels missing: please ask a reviewer or maintainer to add frontend, documentation to this merge request.

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

• doc/user/packages/container_registry/container_protection_rules.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

• Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
• The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
• Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Reviewer roulette

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	@jachapman (UTC+0)	@rchanila (UTC+11)

Please refer to documentation page for guidance on how you can benefit from the Reviewer Roulette, or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

added linked-issue label

mentioned in issue #480385 (closed)

added 1 commit

• 2087a015 - Protected containers: Remove field "Minimum access level for delete"

Compare with previous version

added 217 commits

• 2087a015...a68c538a - 216 commits from branch gitlab-org:master
• 95ee956d - Protected containers: Remove field "Minimum access level for delete"

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added 1 commit

• f0fe6107 - Protected containers: Remove field "Minimum access level for delete"

Compare with previous version

marked this merge request as ready

marked the checklist item Changelog entry added, if necessary as completed

added frontend label

added workflowready for review label and removed workflowin dev label

requested review from @rchanila and @marcel.amirault

Hi @marcel.amirault! Please review this documentation merge request. This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

added documentation twtriaged labels

@marcel.amirault @rchanila, this Community contribution is ready for review.

• Do you have capacity and domain expertise to review this? If not, find one or more reviewers and assign to them.
• If you've reviewed it, add the workflowin dev label if these changes need more work before the next review.
• Please ensure the group's Product Manager has validated the linked issue.

This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

changed milestone to %17.6

added UX label

Thanks for helping us improve the UX of GitLab. Your contribution is appreciated! We have pinged our UX team, so stay tuned for their feedback.

This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

approved this merge request

added pipeline:mr-approved label

added pipelinetier-3 pipeline:run-e2e-omnibus-once labels and removed pipelinetier-1 label

Before you set this MR to auto-merge

This merge request will progress on pipeline tiers until it reaches the last tier: pipelinetier-3.

Before you set this MR to auto-merge, please check the following:

• You are the last maintainer of this merge request
• The latest pipeline for this merge request is pipelinetier-3 (You can find which tier it is in the pipeline name)
• This pipeline is recent enough (created in the last 8 hours)

If all the criteria above apply, please set auto-merge for this merge request.

See pipeline tiers and merging a merge request for more details.

	1 Message
	This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge.

Documentation review

The following files require a review from a technical writer:

• doc/user/packages/container_registry/container_protection_rules.md (Link to current live version)

The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:

• Metadata for the *.md files that you've changed. The first few lines of each *.md file identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change.
• The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
• Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.

Reviewer roulette

Category	Reviewer	Maintainer
frontend	@cindy-halim (UTC-5)	@justin_ho (UTC+1)
UX	@pedroms (UTC+0)	Maintainer review is optional for UX

Please refer to documentation page for guidance on how you can benefit from the Reviewer Roulette, or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.

If needed, you can retry the danger-review job that generated this comment.

Generated by Danger

requested review from @justin_ho and removed review request for @rchanila

Bundle size analysis [beta]

This compares changes in bundle size for entry points between the commits 2f76b6e0 and f0fe6107

Special assets

Entrypoint / Name	Size before	Size after	Diff	Diff in percent
average	4.41 MB	4.41 MB	-	-0.0 %
mainChunk	3.32 MB	3.32 MB	-	0.0 %

---

Note: We do not have exact data for 2f76b6e0. So we have used data from: 00c39369.
The target commit was too new, so we used the latest commit from master we have info on.
It might help to rerun the bundle-size-review job
This might mean that you have a few false positives in this report. If something unrelated to your code changes is reported, you can check this comparison in order to see if they caused this change.

Please look at the full report for more details

---

Read more about how this report works.

Generated by Danger

Generated by gitlab_quality-test_tooling.

---

Slow tests detected in this merge request. These slow tests might be related to this merge request's changes.

Click to expand

Job	File	Name	Duration	Expected duration
#8342425561	spec/features/projects/container_registry_spec.rb#L140	Container Registry with metadatabase enabled when there are image repositories image repo details user removes a specific tag from container repository	63.75 s	< 50.13 s
#8342425561	spec/features/projects/container_registry_spec.rb#L155	Container Registry with metadatabase enabled when there are image repositories image repo details pagination navigate to the second page	52.36 s	< 50.13 s
#8346784349	spec/features/projects/container_registry_spec.rb#L140	Container Registry with metadatabase enabled when there are image repositories image repo details user removes a specific tag from container repository	63.82 s	< 50.13 s
#8346784349	spec/features/projects/container_registry_spec.rb#L155	Container Registry with metadatabase enabled when there are image repositories image repo details pagination navigate to the second page	53.68 s	< 50.13 s

added rspec:slow test detected label

E2E Test Result Summary

allure-report-publisher generated test report!

e2e-test-on-gdk: test report for f0fe6107

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Create      | 129    | 0      | 22      | 0     | 151   | ✅     |
| Verify      | 43     | 0      | 2       | 0     | 45    | ✅     |
| Secure      | 4      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 4     | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 33     | 0      | 1       | 0     | 34    | ✅     |
| Plan        | 76     | 0      | 0       | 0     | 76    | ✅     |
| Govern      | 75     | 0      | 3       | 0     | 78    | ✅     |
| Package     | 24     | 0      | 11      | 0     | 35    | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 8      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 8     | ✅     |
| Release     | 5      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 5     | ✅     |
| Fulfillment | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Manage      | 1      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Analytics   | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Ai-powered  | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 402    | 0      | 41      | 0     | 443   | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

e2e-test-on-cng: test report for f0fe6107

expand test summary

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                          suites summary                          |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
|             | passed | failed | skipped | flaky | total | result |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Growth      | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Govern      | 84     | 0      | 9       | 3     | 93    | ✅     |
| Create      | 140    | 0      | 20      | 0     | 160   | ✅     |
| Plan        | 86     | 0      | 8       | 0     | 94    | ✅     |
| Data Stores | 33     | 0      | 10      | 0     | 43    | ✅     |
| Package     | 24     | 0      | 14      | 0     | 38    | ✅     |
| Verify      | 50     | 0      | 15      | 0     | 65    | ✅     |
| Fulfillment | 2      | 0      | 7       | 0     | 9     | ✅     |
| Monitor     | 8      | 0      | 12      | 0     | 20    | ✅     |
| Analytics   | 2      | 0      | 0       | 0     | 2     | ✅     |
| Secure      | 1      | 0      | 6       | 0     | 7     | ✅     |
| Manage      | 1      | 0      | 9       | 0     | 10    | ✅     |
| ModelOps    | 0      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 1     | ➖     |
| Release     | 5      | 0      | 1       | 0     | 6     | ✅     |
| Ai-powered  | 0      | 0      | 2       | 0     | 2     | ➖     |
| Configure   | 0      | 0      | 3       | 0     | 3     | ➖     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+
| Total       | 436    | 0      | 119     | 3     | 555   | ✅     |
+-------------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-------+--------+

approved this merge request

approved this merge request

Hi @marcel.amirault ,

GitLab Bot has added the Technical Writing label because a Technical Writer has approved or merged this MR.

This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

added Technical Writing label

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

enabled automatic add to merge train when checks pass

started a merge train

merged

@gerardo-navarro, how was your code review experience with this merge request? Please tell us how we can continue to iterate and improve:

1. React with a or a on this comment to describe your experience.
2. Create a new comment starting with @gitlab-bot feedback below, and leave any additional feedback you have for us in the comment.

As a benefit of being a GitLab Community Contributor, you can request access to GitLab Duo. With Code Suggestions, Chat and more AI-powered features, GitLab Duo helps to boost your efficiency and effectiveness by reducing the time required to write and understand code. Visit the Duo access project to request a GitLab Duo license and learn more about the benefits of GitLab Duo.

Subscribe to the GitLab Community Newsletter for contributor-focused content and opportunities to level up.

Thanks for your help!

This message was generated automatically. Improve it or delete it.

Thanks to @rchanila @marcel.amirault @justin_ho for the quick review of this MR.

mentioned in commit 87ea3a82

added workflowstaging-canary label and removed workflowready for review label

added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label

added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label

added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label

added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label

added releasedcandidate label

mentioned in commit bc69764a

mentioned in merge request !174642 (merged)

mentioned in commit 9b66e020

mentioned in commit a915ff35

added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label