Description of problem: I cannot see which version of CloudForms I am running, if I click on the question mark>about in the GUI I can see the version of the automation engine, not the version of the product. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 4.5, but 4.6 also has this issue. How reproducible: Always with current versions. Steps to Reproduce: Click on the question mark, click on about - it does not show 4.5 (or 4.6). Actual results: Shows version of the automation engine Expected results: Should show the version of the product. Additional info: Customer I'm at would like this.
Please assess the impact of this issue and update the severity accordingly. Please refer to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity for a reminder on each severity's definition. If it's something like a tracker bug where it doesn't matter, please set the severity to Low.
Another option is to publish an article where the customer could find the relation between Red Hat Cloudforms version and the CFME version.
Created attachment 1396995 [details] screenshot
Did some design on this, and here is what I'm thinking... About screen currently shows "ManageIQ" upstream, and "Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine" downstream as the top-line. First, we should drop the " Management Engine" from the downstream text. The about screen needs to get its info from API, so I propose a new key under product_info called "release" (or perhaps version, but I'm concerned naming it version might be confusing). Code-wise we already have the Vmdb::Appliance::CODENAME method, so we can reuse that for the contents of this new server_info key. I propose renaming that to RELEASE, and then changing the method to read from a file named RELEASE first, and if not found defaulting to the hardcoded upstream value. Then, during build we would create a RELEASE file with the "5.0" string. Once the value is exposed via API, then the about screen would show `product_info.name_full + " " + product_info.release`, which then show "ManageIQ Ivanchuk" upstream and "Red Hat CloudForms 5.0" downstream.
(In reply to Jason Frey from comment #12) > Did some design on this, and here is what I'm thinking... > > About screen currently shows "ManageIQ" upstream, and "Red Hat CloudForms > Management Engine" downstream as the top-line. > > First, we should drop the " Management Engine" from the downstream text. > > The about screen needs to get its info from API, so I propose a new key > under product_info called "release" (or perhaps version, but I'm concerned > naming it version might be confusing). Code-wise we already have the > Vmdb::Appliance::CODENAME method, so we can reuse that for the contents of > this new server_info key. I propose renaming that to RELEASE, and then > changing the method to read from a file named RELEASE first, and if not > found defaulting to the hardcoded upstream value. Then, during build we > would create a RELEASE file with the "5.0" string. > > Once the value is exposed via API, then the about screen would show > `product_info.name_full + " " + product_info.release`, which then show > "ManageIQ Ivanchuk" upstream and "Red Hat CloudForms 5.0" downstream. Agreed to remove "Management Engine" Agreed on "RELEASE", are we going to show 5.0.1 when it will be release 1?
Loic, no we won't show 5.0.1 because we don't release a product numbered that way. It's only 5.0 and CFME is the one with the patch number.
We actually show patch number for CloudForms in errata text, like "CloudForms 4.7.6". So I'll put major.minor.patch (5.0.0, 5.0.1) in RELEASE file.
Wow I did not know that! Then yes, let's get the whole thing in the RELEASE file.
(In reply to Jason Frey from comment #12) > Code-wise we already have the > Vmdb::Appliance::CODENAME method, so we can reuse that for the contents of > this new server_info key. I propose renaming that to RELEASE, and then > changing the method to read from a file named RELEASE first, and if not > found defaulting to the hardcoded upstream value. Then, during build we > would create a RELEASE file with the "5.0" string. Are we ok dropping "codename"? Based on comments in https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/17769, one of the reasons codename was added was so we can map downstream version to upstream branch (5.11 = Ivanchuk).
If that's the case, I'm ok with keeping both...wonder if we should expose both through the API?
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/19018
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-api/pull/628
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/pull/5846
New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/30fa800dff40f9ada67fb7815cc85d88dfa551af commit 30fa800dff40f9ada67fb7815cc85d88dfa551af Author: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> AuthorDate: Fri Jul 19 12:40:24 2019 -0400 Commit: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> CommitDate: Fri Jul 19 12:40:24 2019 -0400 Add "Release" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546108 lib/vmdb/appliance.rb | 6 + 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-ui-classic/commit/b095e290970633a9750c9599f0d27b1aae869b79 commit b095e290970633a9750c9599f0d27b1aae869b79 Author: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> AuthorDate: Fri Jul 19 15:34:01 2019 -0400 Commit: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> CommitDate: Fri Jul 19 15:34:01 2019 -0400 Add release to About screen title https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546108 app/javascript/components/miq-about-modal.jsx | 5 +- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq-api/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-api/commit/ee7e0573e115644591859c765f439417d66ab820 commit ee7e0573e115644591859c765f439417d66ab820 Author: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> AuthorDate: Fri Jul 19 14:06:30 2019 -0400 Commit: Satoe Imaishi <simaishi> CommitDate: Fri Jul 19 14:06:30 2019 -0400 Add server_info.release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1546108 app/controllers/api/api_controller.rb | 1 + spec/requests/entrypoint_spec.rb | 1 + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
I see this in the about dialog: ``` Red Hat CloudForms 5.0.0 Version 5.11.0.16.20190724210259_2b4aa51 Server Name EVM ... Plugins ... Automation Engine 5.11.z@ff1001b7 ... ``` It corresponds to what I found in the appliance: # cat RELEASE 5.0.0 # rpm -q cfme cfme-5.11.0.16-1.el8cf.x86_64 But I do really find this confusing. Is this correct? By looking at the About page I cannot decide what is the actual CFME version to put in the bugzilla for example -- 5.0.0? 5.11.0.16?
Please respond to Comment 26..
5.0.0 is CloudForms version as the About title says, not CFME version, and it stays same for a release. So if you're putting info to bugzilla, for example, I'd expect you'd put the most detailed info which is 5.11.0.16. If customer is reporting issue, it can be "CloudForms 5.0.0" which is "CFME 5.11.0". But if this is confusing, I'll change to whatever Loic approves :)
Well I guess it means this is VERIFIED
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. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:4199