RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 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 "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". 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 "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-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.
Bug 839772 - Update service level and release of "" to be "Not Set" in Settings Dialog
Summary: Update service level and release of "" to be "Not Set" in Settings Dialog
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: subscription-manager
Version: 6.4
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: 6.4
Assignee: Shwetha Kallesh
QA Contact: Entitlement Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 771481 840993
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-07-12 19:17 UTC by Matt Reid
Modified: 2013-04-29 14:23 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: subscription-manager-1.1.11-1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-21 08:55:24 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Blank Strings (24.31 KB, image/png)
2012-07-12 19:17 UTC, Matt Reid 		no flags Details
Not Set String in release and service-level preferences (129.52 KB, image/png)
2012-12-10 07:41 UTC, Shwetha Kallesh 		no flags Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2013:0350 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE subscription-manager bug fix and enhancement update 2013-02-20 20:53:35 UTC

Description Matt Reid 2012-07-12 19:17:11 UTC 
Right now we give users the option of selecting from Premium, Self-support, Standard, None, "", etc in service levels and various release versions, along with "".

I'd love to see the empty string replaced with "Not Set". "" vs "None" isn't a very obvious difference. I think having an actual string would be a big help here.

I guess this would mean we should support 'subscription-manager release --set=not-set' and 'subscription-manager service-level --set=not-set' as well, but we should keep --unset and the unique display text for when it's not set.

Version:
1.0.9-1.git
Comment 1 Matt Reid 2012-07-12 19:17:43 UTC 
Created attachment 597884 [details]
Blank Strings
Comment 3 John Sefler 2012-11-16 14:59:37 UTC 
(In reply to comment #0)
> I'd love to see the empty string replaced with "Not Set". "" vs "None" isn't
> a very obvious difference. I think having an actual string would be a big
> help here.

"None" happens to be a real valid service level for the credentials under which you are currently registered.  The blank field which defaults at the top of the gui drop-down list already means not set...

[root@rhsm-accept-rhel6 ~]# subscription-manager service-level
Service level preference not set

which is also consistent with the setting of service level to ""...

[root@rhsm-accept-rhel6 ~]# subscription-manager service-level --set ""
Service level preference has been unset

See related bug 857918
Comment 4 Matt Reid 2012-11-16 16:02:03 UTC 
My concern here is that if I looked at that dialog without an intricate knowledge of our service levels and subscriptions, and wanted to ensure I wasn't enforcing a service level preference, what should I select? Should I select Service Level Preference: None? Should I select Service Level Preference: ""? 

I could see someone seeing None and thinking that they were setting their system to not have a preference, so making our actual "unset" value more explicit might make it more obvious what does what.

While what we have now is consistent with --set "", I don't think we're advertising using set to remove a service level now that we have --unset.

Do you feel like we're ok as is?
Comment 5 John Sefler 2012-11-16 19:03:45 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> Do you feel like we're ok as is?

I agree with mreid that a more explicit ["Not Set"|"No Preference"] string at the top of the drop-down list in the gui for service level setting is less ambiguous than a blank string.  Same for release setting.  I do feel that the current cli behavior is good as-is.
Comment 6 Adrian Likins 2012-12-04 21:14:55 UTC 
in rhel-6.4

commit a2a1a2bd7d0ef32ef544824ecc11ba71ff96ae33
Author: Alex Wood <awood>
Date:   Wed Nov 28 10:16:27 2012 -0500

    839772: Display "Not Set" instead of "" in SLA and release preferences.

in master

commit 2bc346e3d6e447737c138a9b9ca8b0ad62f30f44
Author: Alex Wood <awood>
Date:   Wed Nov 28 10:16:27 2012 -0500

    839772: Display "Not Set" instead of "" in SLA and release preferences.
Comment 8 Shwetha Kallesh 2012-12-10 07:41:27 UTC 
Created attachment 660616 [details]
Not Set String in release and service-level preferences

Verified!!

[root@rhel-64-server entitlement]# subscription-manager version
server type: Red Hat Subscription Management
subscription management server: 0.7.21-1
subscription-manager: 1.1.11-1.el6
python-rhsm: 1.1.6-1.el6
Comment 10 errata-xmlrpc 2013-02-21 08:55:24 UTC 
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.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0350.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.