Bug 1020140

Summary: Sorting based on "Available" column in "All available subscriptions" tab is not working
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Rehana <redakkan>
Component: subscription-managerAssignee: candlepin-bugs
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: John Sefler <jsefler>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 7.0CC: ckozak
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-03 19:30:22 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 863175    
Attachments:
Description Flags
ascendingorder
none
descendingorder none

Description Rehana 2013-10-17 06:36:34 UTC 
Description of problem:
Observed that sorting based on "Available" quantity on "All available subscriptions" tab is not sorting correctly

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
subscription-manager version
server type: Red Hat Subscription Management
subscription management server: 0.8.29-1
subscription-manager: 1.10.3-1.git.3.d610508.el7
python-rhsm: 1.10.3-1.git.0.6ac2883.el7


How reproducible:
4/4

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Register machine to candlepin server
2.Launch sub-man-gui
3.Move to "All available subscriptions"
4.Click on update ( with 'match my  system', 'have no overlap with existing subscriptions' selected)
5.sort based on the "Available" subscriptions 

Actual results:
Observed that the sorting is not working (PFA)

Expected results:
sorting based on the "Available" subscription should list the subscriptions based on the available subscriptions

Additional info:

observed that when less number of available subscriptions are present the sort is working as exepected, example list subscription for match installed products (say only 3 products are installed)
Comment 1 Rehana 2013-10-17 06:38:53 UTC 
Created attachment 813194 [details]
ascendingorder
Comment 2 Rehana 2013-10-17 06:40:00 UTC 
Created attachment 813195 [details]
descendingorder
Comment 3 Carter Kozak 2014-01-03 19:30:22 UTC 
I don't think this is a bug.  pools are sorted by the parent node first (for stacks this is blank in the available field).  It's not particularly useful this way, but there's not much we can do, and I don't think changing it would expose more information, or make it easier to use.