Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 499886

Summary: Event details UI does not display package arch
Product: Red Hat Satellite 5 Reporter: Jay Dobies <jason.dobies>
Component: WebUIAssignee: Clifford Perry <cperry>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Red Hat Satellite QA List <satqe-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 530Keywords: Triaged
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-05-09 10:39:10 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 462714, 479461    

Description Jay Dobies 2009-05-08 18:34:28 UTC 
Description of problem:
The event details page (/network/systems/details/history/event.pxt) shows a list of packages involved in the action but not the arch of each. This was seen on verify specifically, however the other events should be checked as well.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.3

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Schedule a package verify event
2. Navigate to the event details page
  
Actual results:
Each package's name and version.

Expected results:
Each package's name, version, and arch.

Additional info:
The page is currently in perl and needs to be converted as well. That's probably not going to be completely trivial since so many different types of events feed into it, however it may just be that the perl code looks more complicated than it is.
Comment 1 Clifford Perry 2014-05-09 10:39:10 UTC 
We have not addressed this specific bug in over 5 years years. This does not seem to have an active customer case with the bug report either. Closing out as wontfix to clear from backlog. 

Please re-open if you disagree and wish further review.

Cliff