[Suggestion] redfetch to set duplicate licenses as "inactive"

[Sicprofundus]

Now we're trying to address the issue where redfetch wouldn't download when there's a duplicate expired license, I was thinking that there is no real good reason for there to be duplicate licenses anyhow. This might be scopecreep for redfetch

It seems like there might be a variety of different avenues to address this:

• [purchasing system] purchasing a new license instead of renew make the old one "inactive"
• [redfetch] when redfetch does a check for duplicates, redfetch "inactives" the expired

[Teichoui]

This is fixed by my pr. Waiting on red to do it

[Sicprofundus]

This is fixed by my pr. Waiting on red to do it

I'm not sure you read/comprehended what this issue says

as i mentioned in the convo we had - i think this is a solution to the symptom and something that does need to be addressed, but i do not think it is a root cause issue.

you saying it is fixed in your pr is untrue - it does not get rid of duplicate licenses - something that folks have complained about even before it caused an issue with downloading resources.

on top of addressing the "not downloading an active license if there is an expired one" i think we need to address multiple lingering licenses as i mentioned

[Teichoui]

This was how I was told to fix it by red.... As I told you per our conversation.

[jessebevil]

Retrieving a valid license if multiple licenses exist, and removing duplicates are two separate things. Your PR addresses allowing someone with a valid license to download a resource they have paid for. This is suggesting we use it to find duplicates that are expired and remove them entirely so that the issue is self healing over time. I believe the two are fundamentally two separate issues.

Ideally there would only ever be one license per customer per resource. The existence of multiple licenses means that users can accidentally renew a resource a second time, and thus have multiple unexpired copies of a single resource. This means the customer has purchased something twice and then resource owners have to

• manually refund (losing some or all of the fee by the processor such as stripe or paypal)
• reassign it to another resource (if they have one) so the customer is getting something they don't already have
• or the customer doesn't notice and is out money for no reason

It goes beyond just making sure they can download it.

I had someone reach out to me recently because they realized they had purchased a second copy of mage, they did not want a refund but instead wanted to just have the license shifted to another resource. But they owned all the ones I had, so Sic agreed to let me give them one of their licenses. Since they made that mistake I looked at the rest of their resources and found they owned a duplicate license for Berzerker as well. This is why one issue being solved doesn't solve another issue in this situation.

Sic's suggestion is to set it inactive - personally I'd prefer it was just removed entirely. Inactive would solve the accidental renewal, but wouldn't solve us looking at licenses manually results in needing to filter through a sea of licenses to find what's left.

Your PR addresses one issue, this suggestion would address the second (though not ideally imho).
The outcome being that no duplicates are purchased and that they can download them is an end goal I would prefer resulted, regardless if it's set as inactive or removed entirely.

[Teichoui]

That is a more then fair point and I do feel we should clean that up. It would fix lots of issues 110%

[Teichoui]

Now we're trying to address the issue where redfetch wouldn't download when there's a duplicate expired license, I was thinking that there is no real good reason for there to be duplicate licenses anyhow. This might be scopecreep for redfetch

It seems like there might be a variety of different avenues to address this:

• [purchasing system] purchasing a new license instead of renew make the old one "inactive"
• [redfetch] when redfetch does a check for duplicates, redfetch "inactives" the expired

would this all not be server side?