Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 829803
[RFE] Add Explicit Unset Command & Unique String to service-level Module
Last modified: 2013-01-07 22:54:37 EST
Description of problem:
Currently to remove a preference for service level or release, a user must type in --set "" or --set=, which returns a message of "Release set to:" and "Service level preference not set". I think we should have a unique string for unsetting the preference, something like "Service level preference unset", and then if they do --show on an unset preference, it displays "Service level preference not set". Saying it wasn't set makes it sound like the command was ignored because something went wrong, so while that works fine for --show, I don't think it fits for --set.
We should implement "service-level --unset" to remove their preference without having to know they should set it to be blank.
Adding in an explicit command also lets us expose it in --help, so that it is discoverable. As is, they would need to read documentation (assuming we explained it somewhere) to figure out they unset it by setting it.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
We should also do this for the release module, I'll add a BZ for it.
The --unset for service level should result in an empty string sent to the backend server for service level. The server should then interpret that value to null for persistence.
*** Bug 829812 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
fixed in master in bacae2619cdfaf555d2adbe6263fd1b33adca4dc
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion
in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Product Management has
requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for
potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release for currently
deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in
[root@dhcp201-196 ~]# rpm -qa | grep subscription-manager
[root@dhcp201-196 ~]# subscription-manager service-level --help | grep unset
--unset unset the service level for this system
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.