Bug 113084

Summary:	Negative entitlements in entitlement proxy product mappings
Product:	Red Hat Satellite 5	Reporter:	Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk>
Component:	Other	Assignee:	Chip Turner <cturner>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fanny Augustin <fmoquete>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	unspecified	CC:	rhn-bugs
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2004-01-15 14:32:41 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Greg DeKoenigsberg 2004-01-08 11:57:25 UTC

Now that we're selling an entitlement that replaces one sort of slot
with another (upgrade management to provisioning), we need to be sure
that product mappings can add AND remove slots.

We also need to be sure that, when we remove slots, we set a lower
bound of 0 on the number of slots a customer can have.

Comment 1 Peter Jones 2004-01-08 22:39:47 UTC

Ok, so right now we have a lower bound of zero (needs testing).

What we don't have is web_customer_entitlements and
rhnUserAvailableUpgrades (which is only concerned with basic slots
anyway).

Fixing web_customer_entitlements is nonsensical.  I can make any
particular row of the results not display a number less than zero, but
then it'll show you having more entitlements than you have.  The code
that uses the view needs to know that it should look for some
entitlements and try to cancel out...

Suggestions?

Comment 2 Greg DeKoenigsberg 2004-01-10 19:20:17 UTC

If I remembered Chip's proposal on Thursday afternoon, I'd repeat it
here, but I don't.  I'll just trust that you remembered it and hand
the bug back to you.  :-)

Comment 3 Peter Jones 2004-01-13 00:47:12 UTC

I think the agreement thursday afternoon was that I can't possibly do
anything meaningful to the views, and he'd solve it in application code.

Assigning to him now, to be sure I'm right, and that it's done (I
think it is).

Comment 4 Chip Turner 2004-01-14 17:47:42 UTC

yeah this should be solved now; views more or less make sense, but it
isn't beautiful

Comment 5 Greg DeKoenigsberg 2004-01-15 14:32:41 UTC

Closing this bug because it's now represented in 3 or 4 other bugs.  :-)