Description of problem: Errata RHSA-2006:0726 is being blocked. Here is link to the advisory: http://errata.devel.redhat.com/errata/showrequest.cgi?advisory=2006:0726 When trying to push data to RHN QA Server, we get this message: Done Pushing Files Updating issue and update dates to 2006-11-08. Pushing to RHN (this could take a while).... Error Message: Invalid entry: {'changed': '2006-11-02 17:13:13', 'package_name': 'wireshark', 'rhn_pkgupload': '', 'id': 169120, 'signed_md5sum': 'b74bd883b6fa0bd1c1aaa87fefb94f23', 'current': 1, 'epoch': 'null', 'ftppath': '', 'rhn_channel': ['redhat-advanced-server-i386'], 'key_name': 'master', 'who': 'qa-errata-list', 'collection': '', 'brew_rpm_id': 735621, 'rhn_shadow_channel': [''], 'arch': 'i386', 'package': 'wireshark-0.99.4-AS21.1.i386.rpm', 'md5sum': 'b74bd883b6fa0bd1c1aaa87fefb94f23', 'signed': 'master', 'rhn_beta_channel': [''], 'release': '2.1AS', 'key_id': 'db42a60e', 'fullpath': '/mnt/redhat/brewroot/packages/wireshark/0.99.4/AS21.1/data/signed/db42a60e/ i386/wireshark-0.99.4-AS21.1.i386.rpm'} Error Class Code: 50 Error Class Info: Invalid information uploaded to the server Explanation: An error has occurred while processing your request. If this problem persists please enter a bug report at bugzilla.redhat.com. If you choose to submit the bug report, please be sure to include details of what you were trying to do when this error occurred and details on how to reproduce this problem. Error pushing to RHN (qa): Server was http://scripts.back-webqa.redhat.com/BUGZILLA/ Content-Type: text/html Error Push to Red Hat Network failed 1. Please contact errata-maint if you believe this to be in error. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Go to the errata advisory. Then go to the Errata Control Center or use this link: http://errata.devel.redhat.com/errata/erratainfo.cgi?advisory=2006%3A0726 2. Push "5. Push Data to RHN QA Server" link in the Update Actions row of the Progress Summary table. 3. Hit the "Push errata" button and wait for the result... Actual results: Pushing files to RHN fails. Expected results: All files should be pushed successfully... Additional info: It is blocking ASYNC RHSA errata advisory. Look at comment #29
I've fixed up the ftp paths. Upon reflection, this occured when I had to manually create a filelist for this erratum, since there was no ProductListings data for wireshark.
This is not a bug on RHN's side. The data sent was not valid. Had a discussion with mjcox on this. closing as not a bug on our end.
This is a bug. Looking closer at the ftp paths being sent, RHN was only getting sent blank ftp paths for non SRPM, non -debuginfo packages. No such files are _ever_ sent to the FTP server, so there is no such thing as a valid path for them.
Is there any update on this? We should not have be taking extra effort to generate phony data for files that do not ever get pushed to the ftp server. This is bug prone extra effort on our end. If empty cannot be allowed, then can a simple space or some other character? Is the RHN side validating that /it/is/a/valid/path ?
ping Please respond to jorris' comments above. We really need to know how to proceed with this before things get too hectic with RHEL-4.5.
ping We really need a response so we can plan appropriately on our end.
ping Can we please get a response?
I think pradeep's response, while a little brief, was accurate. I don't recall the specific field, but I'm pretty sure we were getting sent invalid data, and I think we agreed to improve the crappy messaging so you would know which field was broken: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221885 This has been verified as fixed for rhn500 on webqa right now. In the past, we viewed fullpath as required; we need this to be able to display info about non-rpm packages on rhn.redhat.com/errata/. Don't have the example offhand, but there was an erratum that actually had an updated boot.iso file attached. In the coming months, I think we'll be coming to you with some ideas on how to pretty significantly revamp the import procedures, particularly about how we can have content start to show up in webdev + webqa + stage + dedicated errata env all at the same time. Rather than tweaking business logic around the parameters, I'd rather spend the few immediate cycles we have on bugs like 225251 & 210122... let's stablize those, then together design the *right way* all this crap should work... If that's totally insufficient, let's set up a meeting.
Right, bug 221885 fixes the error messaging. The concern here was the requirement for having a 'valid' ftp path for rpms that are not actually put on the ftp server. In other words, every rpm that isn't an SRPM sent to rhn requires a 'valid' path, even though the path is not at all truly 'valid', in that there is no such directory ever on ftp.redhat.com. The question we had was 1) Is this really neccessary? We're producing a new version of the errata system and it would be more convenient to not create fake ftp paths for all the files. 2) Since you seem to imply above that it is neccessary to have an ftp path, at least for now, the question then is how much validation is done on the path structure in the rhn import side? Does it have to be something very valid looking like: /ftp/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os/i386/thunderbird-1.5.0.9-0.1.el4.i386.rpm which is what is sent now, or can we just send: /foo/bar/baz/thunderbird-1.5.0.9-0.1.el4.i386.rpm Thanks, Jon Orris