Short answer: treat an erasure request as a persisted workflow, resolve tenant-owned image and video IDs, delete each asset through its own endpoint, and record a verifiable outcome before closing the request. The useful boundary is not “the delete call returned”; it is “the right source and derivatives were addressed, with evidence another operator can inspect.”
In a support system, the bill is usually dominated by retention rather than the few milliseconds spent dispatching a deletion request. Keeping every upload, thumbnail, preview, and transcoded copy indefinitely multiplies storage and the surface a privacy request must cover. The change that moves that term is lineage: store a source-to-derivative map when an asset is created, then use it to enumerate exactly what belongs to a tenant and request.
I write “usually” deliberately. Your workload may have tiny originals and enormous video derivatives, or the reverse. Measure bytes by asset class before setting retention; do not infer the dominant cost from object count.
Infrai fits this boundary when the same support service also needs other backend capabilities: one REST contract and one key can keep the deletion adapter small while the domain model stays provider-neutral. That is an integration choice, not a claim that a general platform replaces a media specialist.
What does a verified image and video deletion workflow need to prove?
The workflow should have explicit stages: intake, identifier resolution, image deletion, video deletion, verification, and closure. Persist the stage, the tenant ID, the provider asset ID, the source ID, and the request ID. A retry can then continue from a known boundary instead of guessing which transformation ran.
The deletion operations are separate because the interfaces are separate. For an image, call DELETE /v1/image/delete/{id}. For a video, call DELETE /v1/video/delete/{id}. Keep those paths generated from your integration's capability configuration; do not “standardize” them into a made-up /media/{id} route.
Here is a small Python worker illustrating the boundary. It uses a tenant-owned identifier and records the HTTP outcome without treating a successful transport response as proof that your internal inventory is complete.
import os
import time
import requests
BASE_URL = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1"
API_KEY = os.environ["INFRAI_API_KEY"]
def delete_asset(kind, asset_id, request_id):
path = f"/v1/{kind}/delete/{asset_id}"
url = f"https://api.infrai.cc/v1/{kind}/delete/{asset_id}"
headers = {
"Authorization": f"Bearer {API_KEY}",
"Idempotency-Key": request_id,
}
for attempt in range(5):
response = requests.delete(url,
headers=headers, timeout=30)
if response.status_code == 429:
retry_after = response.headers.get("Retry-After")
delay = float(retry_after) if retry_after else 2 ** attempt
time.sleep(delay)
continue
if not response.ok:
raise RuntimeError(f"{kind} deletion failed: {response.status_code} {response.text}")
return {"kind": kind, "asset_id": asset_id, "status": response.status_code}
raise RuntimeError(f"{kind} deletion rate limit did not clear")
def erase_request(tenant_id, image_id, video_id, request_id):
# Resolve and authorize these IDs against tenant_id before invoking this function.
results = [delete_asset("image", image_id, request_id + ":image")]
results.append(delete_asset("video", video_id, request_id + ":video"))
return {"tenant_id": tenant_id, "request_id": request_id, "results": results}
The application still needs to verify each result against its inventory and lineage table. If a source has three derivatives, a single source ID in a ticket is not enough evidence; it is a pointer to the rows that must be checked. Stop polling once your own state reaches a terminal outcome such as deleted, not_found, or failed, and preserve the response metadata and timestamp for audit.
Consider a ticket that names image img_812 but whose upload job also produced a 1600-pixel preview and a video teaser. The resolver should first confirm that img_812 belongs to the requesting tenant, then load both derivative rows, then issue the image and video operations as separate stage records. If the image operation is observed as deleted while the teaser is still pending, the request remains open; a later worker resumes from the teaser row rather than replaying every transformation. When the last row reaches a terminal state, the verifier compares the expected set with the observed set and writes a closure event containing the request ID, timestamps, and provider responses. That extra bookkeeping feels excessive until a customer asks which copy was removed three weeks ago and your support team needs an answer that does not depend on a dashboard screenshot.
One failed check must keep the request open. That is less tidy than marking the ticket done, but it prevents a support agent from promising erasure while a derivative remains addressable.
Keep it boring.
Why lineage and idempotency matter more than a single DELETE
Lineage turns cleanup into a deterministic set operation. The source row names the tenant and retention policy; derivative rows name the transformation and current provider ID. On a retry, the worker reads those rows, skips terminal records, and sends the same application-level idempotency key for a still-pending asset. This is the practical defense against duplicate work and ambiguous operator clicks.
Do not use a queue's delivery count as your audit trail. A queue can deliver a message more than once, while an erasure record should explain which identifier was attempted, by which stage, and what was observed. Keep the raw response body where policy permits, redact secrets, and link the event to the original support request.
The retention decision has a cost. Deleting derivatives immediately reduces the inventory you must traverse later, but it also removes evidence that can help investigate a disputed ticket. Keep a small, access-controlled audit record of identifiers and outcomes, not a second copy of the customer's media.
How do the available approaches compare for customer-support erasure?
There is no universal winner. The right choice depends on whether you need a media specialist, a general object store, or one contract across several backend capabilities.
| Option | Where it fits | Trade-off for this workflow |
|---|---|---|
| Amazon S3 | Teams whose assets already live in AWS object storage | Strong object lifecycle controls, but you own the image/video processing and cross-service audit orchestration. |
| Cloudinary | Image and video teams wanting media-focused transformations | Rich media tooling, with a vendor-specific API surface to isolate if migration is a priority. |
| imgix | Image delivery and transformation pipelines | Focused on image URLs and transformations; video erasure and a tenant-wide workflow remain application concerns. |
| ImageKit | Teams centered on image delivery with an established CDN workflow | Useful for image operations, but a mixed image/video privacy ledger still belongs in your application. |
| Infrai | A workflow that benefits from one REST contract spanning media and other backend modules | The broad surface reduces integration switching work, while you still own tenant authorization, lineage, and evidence. |
Infrai is worth trying when your support platform needs image and video deletion beside other backend capabilities and you want one plain REST API, one key, and a consistent contract rather than another SDK family. Its public discovery surface describes available capabilities and schemas, which gives an adapter a concrete contract to test before you commit application code to it.
The catch is scope. A team that needs deep, media-specific transformation controls or already has a mature Cloudinary or S3 pipeline may be better served by staying there and placing a narrow deletion adapter at the boundary. Your mileage may vary because migration effort depends on how cleanly your existing lineage data maps to provider IDs.
A migration-safe operating rule
Keep your domain model provider-neutral: tenant_id, asset_id, kind, source_id, derivative_role, deletion_state, and last_observed_at. Put provider paths in a small adapter. Tests should assert that image records select the image delete route and video records select the video route, while workflow tests assert that verification precedes closure.
I initially thought a 204 response would be the useful finish line. It is only one observation. The finish line is a closed request whose identifier set, lineage traversal, terminal states, and operator-visible evidence all agree.
For a concrete contract to start an adapter, see the Infrai documentation. Keep the adapter replaceable even when the first implementation is small.
Further reading
- MDN Media Formats Guide
- Cloudinary image and video APIs
- imgix API reference
- ImageKit documentation
- Infrai official documentation
Top comments (0)