Bug 820386

Summary:	Including "all" in any of the attributes in target_content.xml does not work.
Product:	[Retired] CloudForms Cloud Engine	Reporter:	james labocki <jlabocki>
Component:	aeolus-all	Assignee:	Mike Orazi <morazi>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Rehana <aeolus-qa-list>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	1.0.0	CC:	cpelland, dajohnso, imcleod, jvlcek, vvaldez
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-05-24 20:16:19 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:

Description james labocki 2012-05-09 19:41:17 UTC

Description of problem:
Including "all" in any of the attributes in target_content.xml does not work. 

<include target='all' os='all' version='all' arch='all'> 

work in target_content.xml as described in 

http://aeolusproject.org/audrey.html#audrey_agent

Comment 1 jrd 2012-05-11 14:02:33 UTC

Is this a regression, or did "all" just never work?

Comment 2 james labocki 2012-05-11 14:12:19 UTC

I am not sure if "all" ever worked, but it is mentioned upstream in documentation. 

It's worth nothing that there is no mention of the target_content.xml in the product documentation that I have seen. Perhaps if we raise a bug against documentation asking for a better explanation of what is supported in target_content.xml we could avoid users looking at the upstream project. 

Of course, if it's not supported then I'd like to make this a RFE to support "all" in the target_content.xml. That functionality would really help users who want to deploy, for example, the candlepin RPM to all instances no matter where they are targeted.

Comment 3 james labocki 2012-05-11 14:12:58 UTC

s/nothing/noting/

Comment 4 Steve Loranz 2012-05-11 14:16:57 UTC

I didn't write this code, so I went looking to familiarize myself and saw this comment.

        # We go from most to least specific in this order:
        #   arch -> version -> os-> target
        # Note that at the moment we even allow an include statment that covers absolutely everything.
        # That is, one that doesn't even specify a target - this is to support a very simple call-time syntax

I take that to mean it should just be '<include>'

Comment 5 Ian McLeod 2012-05-24 19:34:00 UTC

Apologies for the delayed reply.  Steve is correct.  We never supported use of "all".  If this shows up in the upstream doco we should correct it.

The code as written supports "all" like behaviour only in the order described in the comment Steve quoted:

arch -> version -> os-> target

You accomplish this by omitting the field in question or, if you want to match everything, by omitting the fields altogether.

I am in agreement with James.  If this is a concern we should document it more clearly.

From the factory perspective I'm inclined to close this as NOTABUG.

Comment 6 Ian McLeod 2012-05-24 20:16:19 UTC

Closing as NOTABUG after discussions with jrd and chrisp.

Comment 7 Vinny Valdez 2012-05-29 21:10:16 UTC

Indeed, simply using '<include>' has the desired outcome, thanks.