Comment 2 for bug 1778591

After messing with this (in creating the demo test linked in the review above) I'm now pretty unsure on what the right thing to do is.

Is the right fix making sure that if a consumer has no allocations, that consumer record is destroyed, including in the failure shown in the above test? If that's done, then the next effort to set allocations will still accept null.

Or is sending 0 somehow right in that case?