Replacement, Deletion and Orphan Cleanup TaskFlow - Full Stack Developer 2026
Replacement strategy Do not overwrite the same object path by default. Upload a new UUID-named object, verify it, update the application metadata/reference, then clean up the old object. This avoids stale-caching behavior and gives rollback options.
Deletion is a distributed workflow Deletion across database + object storage is not one ACID transaction
READY DELETING Storage.remove DB delete metadata mark row delete bytes remove row
If a step fails, keep enough state to retry cleanup safely.
Recommended delete flow • Authorize attachment deletion in NestJS.
• Mark metadata DELETING so concurrent UI actions stop treating it as normal.
• Call storage.remove([objectPath]).
• After successful object deletion, remove the TaskAttachment row.
• If Storage deletion fails, retain DELETING (or restore READY) and retry operationally.
Orphan cleanup • PENDING rows older than the signed-upload lifetime may indicate abandoned intents.
• Cleanup job checks whether an object exists; remove any abandoned bytes and delete stale metadata.
• Object without TaskAttachment metadata is an orphan and still consumes storage.
• Do not delete directly from storage.objects; use the Storage API.
Why this is not one database transaction PostgreSQL and object storage cannot share the same local Prisma transaction. Correctness comes from explicit workflow states, idempotent operations and compensating cleanup.
Replacement Deletion and Orphan Cleanup matters because it changes a real boundary in TaskFlow. The goal is to understand the inputs, owner, observable output, and failure modes before adding more abstraction.
Restate the goal of “Replacement Deletion and Orphan Cleanup” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: selected file → validation → upload intent → object storage → metadata/finalize. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: Task attachment upload/download/delete workflow using Supabase Storage plus application metadata.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
const intent = await api.createUploadIntent({
fileName: file.name,
contentType: file.type,
size: file.size,
});
await storage.uploadToSignedUrl(intent.path, intent.token, file);
await api.finalizeUpload(intent.id);Do not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Return to the nearest observable boundary: input, network, process log, database, or rendered UI. Compare actual evidence with the predicted path.
Change one variable at a time and reproduce the original failure after the fix; otherwise you have correlation, not diagnosis.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Replacement Deletion and Orphan Cleanup” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Finalize by verifying object existence and committing metadata transactionally as far as the architecture allows.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Public bucket for private tenant files
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.