Bug 1478300 - Regression: software updates known to be non-urgent are shown too frequently
Regression: software updates known to be non-urgent are shown too frequently
Status: NEW
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: gnome-software (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Richard Hughes
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2017-08-04 04:46 EDT by Alan Jenkins
Modified: 2017-09-28 12:42 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Screenshot with update notification (235.13 KB, image/png)
2017-08-04 04:46 EDT, Alan Jenkins
no flags Details
Screenshot of information without update notification (340.14 KB, image/png)
2017-08-04 04:47 EDT, Alan Jenkins
no flags Details
Another non-security update notification on the subsequent day (600.45 KB, image/png)
2017-08-05 03:45 EDT, Alan Jenkins
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Alan Jenkins 2017-08-04 04:46:36 EDT
Created attachment 1308959 [details]
Screenshot with update notification

Description of problem:

GNOME Software is coded to aggregate non-urgent software updates and aggregate them over a period of one week.  This is intended to prevent user fatigue, so that they do not delay applying urgent, security updates.


This is not happening for some reason.  See attached screenshots.

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


How reproducible:
I noticed I was getting updates more frequently than usual.  I'm afraid reproducing this independent of repos and real time is beyond my knowledge.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. observe update notifications more frequent than 1/week
2. each time, check `sudo dnf --refresh updateinfo list updates` to see if any are security updates
3. if you suspect a violation, you will also need to check the update release dates.  See https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-package-announce/
4. double-check last update date using `sudo journalctl --since=-1week | grep -i pk-offline-update`

Actual results:

1. attached screenshots

# sudo dnf clean all
34 files removed

# dnf --refresh updateinfo list updates
Fedora 26 - x86_64 - Updates                                                                                           13 MB/s | 9.4 MB     00:00    
Fedora 26 - x86_64                                                                                                     10 MB/s |  53 MB     00:05    
local-google-chrome                                                                                                    65 kB/s | 3.8 kB     00:00    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 26 - Free - Updates                                                                             147 kB/s | 157 kB     00:01    
RPM Fusion for Fedora 26 - Free                                                                                       1.0 MB/s | 519 kB     00:00    
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Fri 04 Aug 2017 09:43:18 BST.
FEDORA-2017-6dd3daf830 bugfix gedit-2:3.22.1-1.fc26.x86_64
FEDORA-2017-02aafa240a bugfix libidn2-2.0.3-1.fc26.x86_64

# journalctl --since=-1week | grep -i pk-offline-update
Aug 03 08:31:28 alan-laptop pk-offline-update[762]: sent msg to plymouth 'Shutting down after installing updates…'

libidn2 update date: https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-package-announce/msg221443.html
gedit update date: https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-package-announce/msg221442.html

Expected results:

If update notifications arrive more frequently than 1/week, dnf should be showing security updates.
Comment 1 Alan Jenkins 2017-08-04 04:47 EDT
Created attachment 1308960 [details]
Screenshot of information without update notification
Comment 2 Alan Jenkins 2017-08-05 03:45 EDT
Created attachment 1309295 [details]
Another non-security update notification on the subsequent day

This happened again the next day.

# updateinfo list
Fedora 26 - x86_64 - Updates                    8.4 MB/s | 9.4 MB     00:01    
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:02 ago on Sat 05 Aug 2017 08:36:54 BST.
FEDORA-2017-d6c7c13aa1 bugfix file-5.30-8.fc26.x86_64
FEDORA-2017-d6c7c13aa1 bugfix file-libs-5.30-8.fc26.x86_64
FEDORA-2017-0dd79e9cf5 bugfix rubygem-rdoc-5.1.0-2.fc26.noarch

# pkcon get-updates
Getting updates               [=========================]         
Finished                      [=========================]         
Available   	file-5.30-8.fc26.x86_64 (updates)                           	A utility for determining file types
Available   	file-libs-5.30-8.fc26.x86_64 (updates)                      	Libraries for applications using libmagic
Available   	rubygem-rdoc-5.1.0-2.fc26.noarch (updates)                  	RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects
Comment 3 Alan Jenkins 2017-08-22 07:07:30 EDT
And again today.

$ sudo journalctl --since=-1week | grep -i pk-offline-update
Aug 21 09:03:23 alan-laptop pk-offline-update[760]: sent msg to plymouth 'Shutting down after installing updates…'

Interestingly, in confirming the problem further, I get a rough date for when this stopped working :).

$ dconf read /org/gnome/software/install-timestamp
int64 1500846015

$ date --date=@1500846015
Sun 23 Jul 22:40:15 BST 2017
Comment 4 Alan Jenkins 2017-09-28 12:42:49 EDT
Huh.  The stored data has been bumped now

$ dconf read /org/gnome/software/install-timestamp
int64 1505502744
$ date --date=@1505502744
Fri 15 Sep 20:12:24 BST 2017

but not to the most recent update

$ journalctl --since=-1d | grep -i pk-offline-update | tail -n 1
Sep 28 16:42:46 alan-laptop pk-offline-update[765]: sent msg to plymouth 'Rebooting after installing updates…'

Naturally enough I didn't get the "updates have been installed" notification after the reboot, either.

Logs for the 15th show pk-offline-update like before.

Hmm, looking at the code:

	/* have we notified about this before */
	app = gs_app_list_index (apps, 0);
	g_settings_get (monitor->settings,
			"install-timestamp", "x", &time_last_notified);
	if (time_last_notified >= gs_app_get_install_date (app))
        	g_settings_set (monitor->settings,
			"install-timestamp", "x", gs_app_get_install_date (app));

Apparenty GS switched from checking the PK offline update mtime, to checking the install time of the app with index 0.  But app 0 might not have been part of the last update, right?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.