Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 873850 - Cannot create a custom product without explicitly setting a label
Cannot create a custom product without explicitly setting a label
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Satellite 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: WebUI (Show other bugs)
6.0.1
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity medium (vote)
: Unspecified
: Unused
Assigned To: Brad Buckingham
Og Maciel
: Regression
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-11-06 15:08 EST by Jeff Weiss
Modified: 2014-11-09 17:52 EST (History)
8 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
A regression caused validation problems when creating a new product. This fix creates a label from the Product name immediately.
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-12-04 14:57:51 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2012:1543 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Important: CloudForms System Engine 1.1 update 2012-12-04 19:39:57 EST

  None (edit)
Description Jeff Weiss 2012-11-06 15:08:19 EST
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
CloudForms System Engine Version: 1.1.12-20.el6cf

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a custom provider
2. Create a product, just type a name "foo" and click Create
3.
  
Actual results:
Validation Failed:
Label can't be blank
Label cannot contain characters other than ascii alpha numerals, '_', '-'.
Label must contain at least 2 characters

Expected results:
Product created, label is autogenerated

Additional info:
This worked in every puddle up to today's
Comment 4 Jeff Weiss 2012-11-07 10:19:04 EST
Jay, 

Mike McCune told me the Regression keyword means "Functionality in the last release is broken in this build", not "Functionality that worked in an unreleased build is broken in this build".

I had been using the latter definition, but the way bz works, it seems to follow the former definition, because it marks any bug with Regression keyword as a blocker.  

According to the former definition this is not a regression, because the label feature didn't exist in the last release.

However, I still vote for this to block the release anyway.
Comment 6 Brad Buckingham 2012-11-07 11:01:31 EST
katello pull request: https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/1010
Comment 9 Og Maciel 2012-11-08 15:29:53 EST
Verifed both manually and through automation (http://hudson.rhq.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com:8080/hudson/job/cfse-gui/51/testngreports/katello-tests.custom-product-tests/katello-tests.custom-product-tests.custom-product-tests/Create%20a%20custom%20product/)

* candlepin-0.7.8.1-1.el6cf.noarch
* candlepin-selinux-0.7.8.1-1.el6cf.noarch
* candlepin-tomcat6-0.7.8.1-1.el6cf.noarch
* katello-1.1.12-21.el6cf.noarch
* katello-all-1.1.12-21.el6cf.noarch
* katello-candlepin-cert-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch
* katello-certs-tools-1.1.8-1.el6cf.noarch
* katello-cli-1.1.8-12.el6cf.noarch
* katello-cli-common-1.1.8-12.el6cf.noarch
* katello-common-1.1.12-21.el6cf.noarch
* katello-configure-1.1.9-12.el6cf.noarch
* katello-glue-candlepin-1.1.12-21.el6cf.noarch
* katello-glue-pulp-1.1.12-21.el6cf.noarch
* katello-qpid-broker-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch
* katello-qpid-client-key-pair-1.0-1.noarch
* katello-selinux-1.1.1-2.el6cf.noarch
* pulp-1.1.14-1.el6cf.noarch
* pulp-common-1.1.14-1.el6cf.noarch
* pulp-selinux-server-1.1.14-1.el6cf.noarch
Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2012-12-04 14:57:51 EST
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/RHSA-2012-1543.html
Comment 12 Mike McCune 2013-08-16 14:09:48 EDT
getting rid of 6.0.0 version since that doesn't exist

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.