Bug 1292282

Summary: Branding array within Subscription is empty
Product: [Community] Candlepin Reporter: Shayne Riley <sriley>
Component: candlepinAssignee: candlepin-bugs
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Katello QA List <katello-qa-list>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 1.2CC: bcourt, fnguyen
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Triaged
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-07-22 14:52:19 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Differences in the same get subscription call to DEV environment with Pre-CP2.0 and CP2.0. none

Description Shayne Riley 2015-12-16 21:56:19 UTC 
Created attachment 1106539 [details]
Differences in the same get subscription call to DEV environment with Pre-CP2.0 and CP2.0.

Description of problem:

Since Candlepin 2.0, Subscription's branding array is empty, though it should exist.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Candlepin 2.0


How reproducible:

Always.


Steps to Reproduce:

1. Find a subscription which *should* have a branding array. Not all subscriptions do. However, any subscription for MCT2867 (among others) should have a branding array in the entry.

In CP2.0 DEV, we'll use subscriptionId=3781065 (from owner 7791251, pool 8a8798305159a12f01517cb1d9437276):

curl -vku $CP_USER:$CP_PASS -X GET http://candlepin06.web.dev.int.devlab.redhat.com:8080/candlepin/subscriptions/3781065

2. Look at the branding array


Actual results:

"branding": []


Expected results:

"branding": [{
  "productId": "69",
  "name": "Red Hat Satellite",
  "type": "OS",
  "created": "2015-12-07T13:46:49.000+0000",
  "updated": "2015-12-07T13:46:49.000+0000"
}]


Additional Notes:

The attachment shows this difference. It is a diff of the same call made in the same environment; One was made using a Pre-CP2.0 version, the other using a CP2.0 version.
Comment 1 Shayne Riley 2015-12-16 22:06:53 UTC 
This bug is similar to BZ1292283. Each bug represents a problematic difference in what the GET subscription call returns between pre-CP2.0 and CP2.0.
Comment 2 Filip Nguyen 2016-01-25 11:10:47 UTC 
You are correct this is very similar to  BZ1292283. In CP 2.0 we need to fix this by recreating branding from master pool that corresponds to the subscription
Comment 4 Barnaby Court 2016-07-22 14:52:19 UTC 
Marking as closed per Candlepin procedures as a fix has been merged or it has been determined to not be an issue.