[6.15.z] remove user to prevent ForeignKeyViolation

[Satellite-QE]

Cherrypick of PR: #17024

Problem -
When creating another user with a specific role and adding resources in the filter with the 'view_facts' permission, an error occurred ('PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR: update or delete on table "hosts" violates foreign key constraint "fact_values_host_id_fk" on table "fact_values"') during the teardown process while deleting the host. This happened because a user with only view permissions existed for the host and making it impossible to update or delete the user associated with the fact.

Solution -
To prevent this error, the user was removed before the teardown process.

[Satellite-QE]

trigger: test-robottelo
pytest: tests/foreman/api/test_ansible.py::TestAnsibleCfgMgmt -k test_positive_read_facts_with_filter

[Satellite-QE]

PRT Result

Build Number: 10099
Build Status: UNSTABLE
PRT Comment: pytest tests/foreman/api/test_ansible.py::TestAnsibleCfgMgmt -k test_positive_read_facts_with_filter --external-logging
Test Result : ===== 2 passed, 3 deselected, 138 warnings, 2 errors in 1367.65s (0:22:47) =====

[amolpati30]

trigger: test-robottelo
pytest: tests/foreman/api/test_ansible.py::TestAnsibleCfgMgmt -k test_positive_read_facts_with_filter

[Satellite-QE]

PRT Result

Build Number: 10105
Build Status: UNSTABLE
PRT Comment: pytest tests/foreman/api/test_ansible.py::TestAnsibleCfgMgmt -k test_positive_read_facts_with_filter --external-logging
Test Result : ===== 2 passed, 3 deselected, 131 warnings, 1 error in 1200.00s (0:20:00) ======

[lhellebr]

If this is a temporary workaround, why isn't there a condition for that issue being resolved? The same for the original PR.

[amolpati30]

Earlier, I tried using the condition, but it didn't work. So, I attempted this approach instead. However, the issue is that this change works sometimes but not consistently. I'm not sure why the behavior varies.

[lhellebr]

In PRT:

{\'error\': {\'message\': \'PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR:  update or delete on table "hosts" violates foreign key constraint "fact_values_host_id_fk" on table "fact_values"\\nDETAIL:  Key (id)=(5) is still referenced from table "fact_values".\\n\'}})')"

It seems like the test actually caught that exact issue, perhaps meaning that the workaround doesn't work?