Description of problem: If you have subscriptions for a product which are stackable, the Subscriptions panel for a registered system should show them grouped somehow in a hierarchy. For instance, you could have access to the following subscriptions: Product Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server, Standard (1-2 sockets) (Up to 1 guest) Contract 001 Qty 3 Product Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server, Standard (1-2 sockets) (Up to 4 guest) Contract 002 Qty 3 Product Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server, Self-support (1-2 sockets) (Up to 1 guest) Contract 003 Qty 3 Contract 003 Qty 1 The Subscriptions panel "flattens" all of these subscriptions into a single level list, and it is hard to see that contract 003 is stackable. Could we somehow make it more obvious that 2 out of the 4 subscriptions are stackable? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): * candlepin-0.5.32-1.el6.noarch * candlepin-tomcat6-0.5.32-1.el6.noarch * katello-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-all-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-candlepin-cert-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch * katello-certs-tools-1.1.6-1.el6.noarch * katello-cli-1.1.0-1.git.13.d10e8a3.el6_3.noarch * katello-cli-common-1.1.0-1.git.13.d10e8a3.el6_3.noarch * katello-common-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-configure-1.1.1-1.git.0.3794e67.el6_3.noarch * katello-glue-candlepin-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-glue-foreman-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-glue-pulp-1.1.2-1.git.2.22b3375.el6_3.noarch * katello-qpid-broker-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch * katello-qpid-client-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch * katello-selinux-0.2.6-1.el6.noarch * pulp-1.1.11-1.el6.noarch * pulp-common-1.1.11-1.el6.noarch * pulp-selinux-server-1.1.11-1.el6.noarch How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Created attachment 602162 [details] RHN portal
Created attachment 602163 [details] Subscriptions panel
This bug was closed because of a lack of activity. If you feel this bug should be reconsidered for attention please feel free to re-open the bug with a comment stating why it should be reconsidered.