Bug 1709352

Summary: [api] dnf.transaction.TransactionItem is completely incorrectly documented
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Pierre Ossman <ossman>
Component: dnfAssignee: rpm-software-management
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 34CC: dmach, jmracek, jrohel, mblaha, mhatina, packaging-team-maint, pkratoch, rpm-software-management, vmukhame
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened, Triaged
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-06-08 00:47:31 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:

Description Pierre Ossman 2019-05-13 12:57:34 UTC
dnf.transaction.TransactionItem is documented as containing a set of packages to be removed and/or installed and two methods to access these (installs() and removes()).

Unfortunately not a single thing in that description is actually true.

In reality dnf.transaction.TransactionItem is really a dnf.db.history.RPMTransactionItemWrapper. It represents a _single_ package being modified. It mimics many of the methods of the package itself, as well as some extra methods to determine its role in the overall transaction.

A decision needs to be made as to what is public API in this class, and the documentation rewritten.

Comment 1 Pierre Ossman 2019-05-13 13:03:26 UTC
See also bug 1709359 which has a request on what we'd like to get out of a future TransactionItem API.

Comment 2 Daniel Mach 2019-07-02 12:17:28 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1693511 ***

Comment 3 Pierre Ossman 2019-07-02 13:03:42 UTC
That bug seems to be closed. Something that can be opened up?

Comment 4 Pierre Ossman 2020-11-04 08:23:03 UTC
From what I can see this has not been resolved. And bug 1693511 is still secret. So I'm reopening this.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2021-02-09 16:22:59 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 34 development cycle.
Changing version to 34.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2022-05-12 16:29:25 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 34 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 34 on 2022-06-07.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '34'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 34 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Comment 7 Ben Cotton 2022-06-08 00:47:31 UTC
Fedora Linux 34 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2022-06-07.

Fedora Linux 34 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.