Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because
the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
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:
While troubleshooting a user not seeing data in Subscription Watch, we noticed that the metadata.json does not appear to meet Yupana's specification.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
tfm-rubygem-foreman_inventory_upload-1.0.2-0.1.el7sat.noarch.rpm
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download report using the Satellite plugin
2. inspect metadata.json and compare to the Yupana API spec
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
Also, this writeup confuses different layers. Ingress does not reject anything or validate anything.
Possible issues include:
1. Yupana rejects tar.gz format because you did not conform to syntax (see https://github.com/quipucords/yupana#-formatting-data-for-yupana-without-qpc). However, this has nothing to do with subscription_status
2. HBI may reject a host (not the tar.gz) based on invalid syntax. Yupana does NOT validate hosts. HBI validates hosts. So likely HBI didn't like subscription_status
I do not think these issues are the same.
- This bug relates to yupana validation
- Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823396 relates to HBI validate
I do not think this is a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823396 based on the fact the validation failures are in different services.
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 (Important: Satellite 6.8 release), 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/RHSA-2020:4366