fix(api): surface subscription deletion errors to users

[Mairuis]

Summary

This PR fixes a bug where trigger subscription deletion/unsubscribe errors were silently ignored during the rebuild process.

• Check UnsubscribeResult.success and propagate error messages to users when unsubscribe fails
• Simplify rebuild logic by removing unnecessary try/except wrapper around unsubscribe
• Refactor update API to use cleaner conditional logic with any()
• Remove redundant test cases that validated silent error handling behavior

Fixes #30332

Test Plan

• Verify that unsubscribe errors are now properly surfaced to users with clear error messages
• Verify that successful subscription rebuilds continue to work as expected
• Run existing unit tests to ensure no regressions

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @Mairuis, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a critical bug where errors occurring during the deletion or unsubscription of triggers were silently ignored, leading to a poor user experience. The changes ensure that such errors are now properly surfaced to users, providing clear feedback when a subscription rebuild fails. Additionally, the PR includes refactoring to simplify the update and rebuild logic within the API, making the codebase more robust and maintainable.

Highlights

• Error Handling: Subscription deletion/unsubscribe errors are now explicitly checked using UnsubscribeResult.success and propagated to users, preventing silent failures during the rebuild process.
• Code Simplification: The rebuild logic has been simplified by removing an unnecessary try/except wrapper around the unsubscribe operation, and the update API now uses cleaner conditional logic with any().
• Test Refactoring: Redundant test cases that previously validated silent error handling behavior for unsubscribe failures have been removed, aligning tests with the new error surfacing logic.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request refactors the trigger subscription update and rebuild logic. The trigger_providers.py controller was simplified to handle different update scenarios (name-only, unauthorized subscriptions, and general rebuilds), moving credential merging logic out. The rebuild_trigger_subscription service method was significantly refactored to remove distributed locking and direct session management, instead performing an explicit unsubscribe followed by a new subscription, and delegating the final database update. This change also made unsubscribe failures explicit errors rather than gracefully handled exceptions. Consequently, two related tests were removed: one for gracefully handling unsubscribe errors and another for the 'provider not found' scenario. The review comment specifically requests re-adding the 'provider not found' test, emphasizing its importance for regression testing given that the provider existence check logic still exists in the rebuild_trigger_subscription method.

I am having trouble creating individual review comments. Click here to see my feedback.

api/tests/test_containers_integration_tests/services/test_trigger_provider_service.py (561-587)

The test test_rebuild_trigger_subscription_provider_not_found has been removed. This test is valuable as it ensures that the system correctly handles cases where a provider is not found during a subscription rebuild. The logic to check for a provider's existence is still present in rebuild_trigger_subscription, so this test remains relevant for regression testing. Please consider re-adding it.