Fixes for Satellite 6.3. This include PR #50, #43#53
Conversation
…tellite#43 This fix override also PR RedHatSatellite#52, making it obsolete.
evgeni
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
overall NACK, mostly because it's too many changes in one commit :)
| * `user`: username of a Satellite 6 user to execute the actions with | ||
| * `pass`: password of the same user | ||
| * `pass`: password of the same user in cleartext | ||
| * `encoded_pass`: password of the same user in base64 encryption (generate with 'echo -n "sat_password" | base64') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NACK, base64 is not an encryption and we should not pretend it to be one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is encoded fine as description or do you prefer something like "masquerade_pass"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no, I prefer not to have this "feature" ;)
|
Willing to discuss every single change :) |
|
I merged the labels PR, please rebase, drop the base64 changes and we'll re-discuss. |
|
Uploaded as requested without encoded_pass option. |
|
|
||
| def checktask(task, last_date) | ||
| task_completed_at = Time.xmlschema(task['ended_at']) rescue Time.parse(task['ended_at']) | ||
| task_completed_at = Time.xmlschema(task['started_at']) rescue Time.parse(task['started_at']) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why this change? If we use started_at, we might find tasks that were started before last_date, but did not complete, and thus were not part of the last publish.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bandrea83 I do not recall the details. May you please check?
As reference: f3b7a3a
| # get repo data | ||
| repo = @api.resource(:repositories).call(:show, {:id => repo_id}) | ||
| # check if the last sync has been ever completed | ||
| if repo.has_key?('last_sync') and repo['last_sync'] and repo['last_sync'].has_key?('ended_at') and repo['last_sync']['ended_at'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same question as above, why changing to started_at
|
I tested it this morning after everyone made changes and committed the pull request, where they changed the YAML is the reason I changed it to I forced a publish and got so I can try update again. |
|
this works here: |
|
Can you provide your |
| tasks << req['id'] | ||
| wait([req['id']]) if @options[:sequential] | ||
| #if @options[:sequential] > 0 and tasks.length >= @options[:sequential] # Why are not we using this standard code? | ||
| if @options[:sequential] > 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@evgeni do you know / recall why here a different code is used?
if @options[:sequential] > 0 in place of if @options[:sequential] > 0 and tasks.length >= @options[:sequential]
|
@gearboxscott thanks for taking the time to test it. |
This fix override also PR #52, making it obsolete.
Also, it include some improvement in clean section.
CCV were possibly done before CV, resulting in a error.
Please note that bug http://projects.theforeman.org/issues/23458 may occur.