Bug 1016847

Summary:	package upload doesn't handle wildcards in filepath as one might expect
Product:	Red Hat Satellite	Reporter:	Corey Welton <cwelton>
Component:	Hammer	Assignee:	satellite6-bugs <satellite6-bugs>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Katello QA List <katello-qa-list>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	Nightly	CC:	bkearney, cwelton
Target Milestone:	Unspecified	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	Unused
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-02-09 19:53:15 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Corey Welton 2013-10-08 19:47:26 UTC

Description of problem:
Using a wildcard in the filepath parameter for a package upload via the CLI only seems to grab the first and only rpm etc. available.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Satellite-6.0.2-RHEL-6-20131007.0


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. place more than one rpm file in localdir
2. create provider/product/repo on katello
3. attempt to upload rpms via CLI via the following command:

repo content_upload --repo Foobar_repo --product Foobar_product --org ACME_Corporation --filepath ./*.rpm 

Actual results:
[root@cloud-qe-21 ~]# ls *.rpm
packagea.rpm  packageb.rpm
[root@cloud-qe-21 ~]# kk repo content_upload --repo Foobar_repo --product Foobar_product --org ACME_Corporation --filepath ./*.rpm   --content_type yum
Successfully uploaded 'packagea.rpm' into repository

Expected results:
[root@cloud-qe-21 ~]# ls *.rpm
packagea.rpm  packageb.rpm
[root@cloud-qe-21 ~]# kk repo content_upload --repo Foobar_repo --product Foobar_product --org ACME_Corporation --filepath ./*.rpm   --content_type yum
Successfully uploaded 'packagea.rpm' into repository
Successfully uploaded 'packageb.rpm' into repository


Additional info:

Comment 6 Bryan Kearney 2017-02-09 19:53:15 UTC

I do no see us addressing this in the next few releases. I am therefore closing this out. If you believe this was done in error, please feel free to re-open with additional information.