Red Hat Satellite engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on Satellite to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs will be migrated starting at the end of May. If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "Satellite project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/SAT-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Description of problem:
It's possible to add the same package for content-view's package filter twice on 6.2.z. On Sat 6.3 error is correctly thrown

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Sat 6.2.5 Snap 3.0

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a CV, add a repo with some packages
2. Create exclusive or inclusive package filter for mentioned CV.
3. Add any package to filter, e.g. package name 'walrus', version 'Equal To' '0.71-1'.
4. Repeat step 3 once again

Actual results:
Same package with same version was successfully added.

Expected results:
Package of the same version shouldn't be added once again, proper error message should be shown, like on sat 6.3.

Additional info:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 981639 ***

Brad, are you sure that's correct resolution? I was aware of BZ981639, but it's for 6.3 . This BZ was pointing that the problem exists in 6.2.z branch too, sorry for misleading description. If it's not going to be fixed in 6.2.z - then WONTFIX is probably better resolution here.
I'm asking as our automation correctly skips WONTFIXes for specific branches but not duplicates (original issue is closed -> the test becomes unblocked -> it's failing as the fix is not there in 6.2.z).

Changing resolution to 'WONTFIX' as it seems as more relevant resolution to me which also works perfectly with our automation. If you think this is wrong, please feel free to update it.