This did make unit tests fail: https://github.com/coder/coder/actions/runs/4080226583/jobs/7032466456#step:9:169

It's unclear to me why we needed a UUID in the first place.

We had just an id index --- is it just to normalize with other DB objects where we use UUIDs for them? I don't like the idea of having two IDs for the same thing.

@spikecurtis I am not sure. I do not think this PR is the fix, but something should be done.

Looks like UUIDs were added in #5110

@kylecarbs can you bring us up to speed on why UUIDs were added and whether we can drop one or other of id uuid?

We could make the code accept invalid uuids if the license is generated before Feb 8, 2023 for example. Any new licenses have to have valid uuids.

@kylecarbs bump
This is blocking #6125. I would prefer it if we could stick with the UUID because the Audit Log needs that type and seems like every other model has it.

@Emyrk Is it now the case that the UUID is embedded in the signed license itself, or its it just a DB identifier local to the deployment it is installed on?

It is embedded to the license claims. We insert a uuid string in the JWT ID field: https://github.com/coder/license/blob/2ae8cabd512f05b58ab871d41e6327bbc405a00d/cmd/licensor/issue.go#L79-L79

@spikecurtis uuids were added to licenses 4 months ago: https://github.com/coder/license/commit/2d26cbd6f689b566a2e84b47d98f94748e2c7fa5

I am not sure if licenses exist without uuids. It is possible. However I think we could just force the error if the license is made after a certain date to handle any old formats.

Would this stop old licenses from working @Emyrk?

@kylecarbs To support old licenses that fail uuid parse, I think we would need to check the issue date (if it's in there) and allow uuid to fail for licenses before a certain date.

This PR does not do that yet.

I am going to generate a random uuid for licenses that do not have uuids.

This will make old and new licenses work. A followup should be to require uuids, potentially breaking old licenses.