Bug 1566114 - Incorrect date and build hash for CFME
Summary: Incorrect date and build hash for CFME
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: UI - OPS
Version: 5.7.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: GA
: cfme-future
Assignee: Dan Clarizio
QA Contact: Mike Shriver
Whiteboard: ui
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-04-11 14:30 UTC by Mike Shriver
Modified: 2018-04-12 12:35 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2018-04-11 14:49:17 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
About Modal of (113.11 KB, image/png)
2018-04-11 14:30 UTC, Mike Shriver
no flags Details

Description Mike Shriver 2018-04-11 14:30:33 UTC
Created attachment 1420360 [details]
About Modal of

Description of problem:
The build date and hash are incorrect for the build

Screenshot attached of the 'About' modal displaying Version, when was built on April 4th, 2018.

This date+hash matches build.

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

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Deploy appliance
2. View About modal

Actual results:
Incorrect build date and hash

Comment 5 Mike Shriver 2018-04-11 15:27:09 UTC
For what its worth (probably little at this point) I don't agree with this build versioning, as this is the CFME version that we're showing to customers and should reflect when that version was created.

I can agree with the hash staying the same, as that hasn't changed, but I disagree with the date remaining the same.  The hash provides some visibility to what MIQ our product is based off of, but CFME build dates should reflect CFME builds, not MIQ.

Customers will see a build date of Dec 7th 2017, which is about 7 days before Ruby 2.3.6 was released.  Customers upgrading from would come to the About screen and see the same exact build date from before they upgraded. These are two examples of ways this could cause confusion for customers.

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