Bug 583104

Summary:	Installation Date displayed on EAR's Content tab is incorrect
Product:	[Other] RHQ Project	Reporter:	Larry O'Leary <loleary>
Component:	Content	Assignee:	RHQ Project Maintainer <rhq-maint>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Corey Welton <cwelton>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	1.3	CC:	spinder, tao
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:	2010-05-27 17:26:09 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	586123

Description Larry O'Leary 2010-04-16 17:24:25 UTC

Description of problem:
The "Installation Date" column for an EAR as displayed on the EAR's Content tab is incorrect or invalid.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
JON 2.3

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Stock JON 2.3 Server installation
2. Stock JON 2.3 Agent installed on same host as JON Server
3. Inventory Agent: platform, RHQ Server
4. Navigate to Resources -> Services
5. Change View drop-down to Enterprise Application (EAR)
6. Select rhq.ear
7. Navigate to rhq.ear's Content -> Deployed tab
  
Actual results:
Installation Date indicates rhq.ear was installed 14715 days, 17 hours ago even though it was just done a couple of days ago.

Expected results:
I am not certain what the intention of this information is.  Is it the date the resource was inventoried?  Is it the modify or create date of the file?  My assumption would be that it is the date inventoried but I can see that others might see it as, when was the EAR deployed/installed into my EAP instance.


Additional info:
I see this with my own EAR manually deployed into an EAP 5 instance.  Not sure what happens if one were to actually add the EAR from JON.

Comment 1 Simeon Pinder 2010-05-27 17:26:09 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 589173 ***