Bug 750137

Summary:	First push of a Content Spec is "revision 7"?
Product:	[Community] PressGang CCMS	Reporter:	Joshua Wulf <jwulf>
Component:	CSProcessor	Assignee:	Ali Abbas <alabbas>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.x	CC:	jwulf, lcarlon
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-11-03 03:25:33 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Joshua Wulf 2011-10-31 06:31:53 UTC

I push a new content spec, and it tells me that it is "revision 7".

Shouldn't the first one be revision 1?



[jwulf@gaura Content Specs]$ skynet push -cn Management\ API\ Guide
Skynet client version: 10.0
Loading configuration from /home/jwulf/.config/skynet.ini
Web Service at http://localhost:8080/ version: 11.0

INFO:  The Content Specification is valid.
WARN:  Note: All descriptions, tags, source urls and writers will be ignored for existing Topics.
INFO:  The Content Specification saved successfully.

Content Specification ID: 6
Revision: 7
[jwulf@gaura Content Specs]$ cd /tmp/test
[jwulf@gaura test]$ skynet build 7
Skynet client version: 10.0
Loading configuration from /home/jwulf/.config/skynet.ini
Web Service at http://localhost:8080/ version: 11.0

INFO: No data was found for the specified ID and revision!
[jwulf@gaura test]$ skynet revisions -c 6
Skynet client version: 10.0
Loading configuration from /home/jwulf/.config/skynet.ini
Web Service at http://localhost:8080/ version: 11.0

INFO: Revisions for Content Specification ID: 6
-> ID: 7 added on Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:29:06 PM

Comment 1 Ali Abbas 2011-11-01 03:44:14 UTC

This is the way Envers is designed Josh, the revisions are set per database and not per entities. Skynet works the same way. The only way to get around it is to redesign Envers itself, or remove Envers and implement our own Auditing system. I don't think we can do much about it at this stage.

Comment 2 Joshua Wulf 2011-11-03 03:25:33 UTC

Understood. Thanks.