Bug 741155
Summary: | the subscription coverage dates and status of a single installed product do not reflect a roll up when multiple consumed subscriptions provide this product | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | John Sefler <jsefler> | ||||
Component: | subscription-manager | Assignee: | Michael Stead <mstead> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | IDM QE LIST <seceng-idm-qe-list> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
Version: | 6.2 | CC: | dgoodwin, jmolet, mstead, skallesh, spandey | ||||
Target Milestone: | beta | ||||||
Target Release: | 6.3 | ||||||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2012-06-20 13:03:20 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: | 738066 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
John Sefler
2011-09-26 03:23:54 UTC
The solution to this problem (what installed status and coverage dates to report for an installed product) is not obvious because the status is really a function of date and depends on what subscriptions/quantity are subscribed over the course of time. Possibilities: - the status for the installed product could be for today only. - the status for the installed product could be ambiguous (Multiple Subscriptions) as suggested in comment 0 - the dates could be a union of subscription dates up to the first day of no coverage - the dates could be wrong no matter what status we choose to report - we could remove the dates I think the reporting of future subscribed is fixed, but the dates on the list installed are not. Also I do not think we're properly accounting for the possibility that the system is not in compliance somewhere between the earlier start date of an entitlement for this product, and the latest end date for an entitlement of this product. I.e. you might be compliant from 2011 - 2012, then from 2020-2021, but we'd list you as compliant from 2011 - 2021, which is far from the case. Fix committed to master branch: 0b197c8b5e608708550c95c510537ce5992aeb81 NOTE: Although the fix is in the commit above, it is broken in RHEL6 due to a difference in python versions (API change). This has been addressed by commit 97f757a70216c402536220bfc58cf13bd71cfb27 in the master branch. When testing on RHEL6 please be sure that both commits are included in the version of subscription-manager. If you are using 0.99.7-1+ you are Ok. Moving to verified RPM used: [root@kvm-guest-04 product]# subscription-manager list --consumed +-------------------------------------------+ Consumed Product Subscriptions +-------------------------------------------+ Product Name: Awesome OS Workstation Bits Contract Number: 25 Account Number: 12331131231 Serial Number: 4578808357493136203 Active: True Quantity Used: 1 Service Level: Standard Service Type : L1-L3 Begins: 03/18/2012 Expires: 03/18/2013 Product Name: Awesome OS Workstation Bits Contract Number: 25 Account Number: 12331131231 Serial Number: 7587081658217073831 Active: False Quantity Used: 1 Service Level: Standard Service Type : L1-L3 Begins: 03/08/2013 Expires: 03/08/2014 [root@kvm-guest-04 product]# subscription-manager list --installed +-------------------------------------------+ Installed Product Status +-------------------------------------------+ Product Name: Awesome OS Workstation Bits Version: 6.1 Arch: ALL Status: Subscribed Starts: 03/18/2012 Expires: 03/08/2014 Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0804.html |