[WIP] Add content-view version export/import skip-rpms options. #718
Conversation
|
Hi @jeffmcutter thanks for your PR :) When you are ready to take it out of WIP let me know and I will test and review this for you. |
|
Hi @chris1984. I'm happy with how the functionality works now, I'm just not too familiar with contributing to this project. Do I need to write specs / tests? I'd be interested in testing and review plus feedback. Should I remove the WIP to start that process? Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR! A test for this new option would be great. Rubocop also has a few complaints, which is causing the build to fail CI:
lib/hammer_cli_katello/content_view_version.rb:352:101: C: Line is too long. [131/100]
option '--skip-rpms', :flag, _("Do not include RPMs in export (content must be synchronized to destination prior to import)")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lib/hammer_cli_katello/content_view_version.rb:403:34: C: Do not leave space between ! and its argument.
if repositories&.any? && ! options['option_skip_rpms']
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
lib/hammer_cli_katello/content_view_version.rb:450:101: C: Line is too long. [106/100]
option '--skip-rpms', :flag, _("Skip import of RPMs (content must be synchronized prior to import)")
^^^^^^
|
Hi @akofink, I fixed the Rubocop complaints. I will look at writing tests in a week or two. Thanks, |
|
@jeffmcutter we are looking to get this into the next release of hammer, I can write unit tests for you and supply you a patch if you want to rebase and push. |
|
@chris1984 That would be fabulous if you could. I'm sorry I've just not had opportunity to get to it, but I would love to get this in there. Thank you! |
|
Hmm, looks like that wasn't the right thing to do? I was trying to rebase to get current before attempting to write tests. |
|
@jeffmcutter hey, so it looks like what you want to do is If you need help with any of the tests let me know |
jeffmcutter
force-pushed
the
content_view_version_export_import_skip_rpms
branch
from
677b997
to
15e9ccd
Compare
|
@chris1984 I finally got my developer setup going and current. It's a bit tricky for this since hammer needs to run locally but the forklift stuff sets it up on its own VM, but I glued the two together and am currently testing that the changes behave as expectedly on the current version. I think I will submit a PR with that to forklift. Also encountered some difficulties here theforeman/forklift#1277. Can you suggest some of the sorts of tests I should be thinking about for this change? I've written some tests for a ManageIQ PR before but I'm not yet making sense of https://github.com/Katello/hammer-cli-katello/blob/master/test/functional/content_view/version/export_test.rb and https://github.com/Katello/hammer-cli-katello/blob/master/test/functional/content_view/version/import_test.rb which seems to be the right place for it unless I'm mistaken. Thanks, |
|
Having difficulties with the content-view version in upstream/master: |
|
@jeffmcutter sorry for the delay, let me try to replicate what you are hitting to give you the next steps. |
|
with -d |
|
I created the missing /var/lib/pulp/published/yum/https/repos/ and tried to run the export again in debug mode and got the following error: In comparing /var/lib/pulp on the current Foreman dev against a Satellite 6.8 server, it appears that /var/lib/pulp has been restructured. Running a find to look for the organization name shows it does not exist on the Foreman dev but does on Satellite 6.8. The actual rpms appear to now be stored under /var/lib/pulp/media/artifact which I do not see on Satellite 6.8. It appears that hammer content-view version export is broken as a result of these changes. |
|
I opened an issue: |
|
@jeffmcutter for the Katello box, I see you are using master. Are you using a katello devel box from vagrant/forklift or a nightly production install from katello.org? |
|
@chris1984 I am using a katello-devel box from forklift which I have modified to include hammer as you can see in this PR: I'm waiting for clarification, but it seems that content-view version import/export may be deprecated in newer versions of Katello or something along those lines: https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/31735 Thanks, |
|
That is correct, the fixes you are adding are for Pulp 2 Which is for 3.17 and below. Katello 3.18+ is where Pulp3 started being used 100% of the time. For our downstream releases your fix would affect Satellite 6.9 and below. So we can still keep working on this if you want. |
|
Being short on time again lately, and this functionality being short-lived (theforeman/forklift#1279). I will close this out. Thank you for your time and efforts. |
Use case:
Two separate Foreman servers which have repositories synchronized from upstream sources need to have the same content-view versions to be able to facilitate consistent life cycle management. For example, one Foreman server may be used for development environments patching and a separate Foreman server may be required to manage production environments patching due to security restrictions.
The new content-view version export/import process works nicely for this, except that if content is synchronized already via a sync plan, the export and import of the RPM repositories can create significant and unnecessary overhead in the export / import / and transfer of the tar ball from the export between export and import systems.
This PR is a work in progress. It is able to export and import content-view versions without including the RPMs using the --skip-rpms option to both content-view version export and import commands. I'm looking for feedback about this idea and implementation.
RFE BZ for this functionality: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744255