On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 4:32 AM Mattia Verga via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Is there any guide that explains fields of the updateinfo.xml files which are generated in repositories? I'm trying to figure out https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/2487 and I think we currently have weird data in updates. For example, looking to the 'issued' and 'modified' dates of few updates I see that the issued date is greater than the modified date... that's because Bodhi modifies the issued date with the timestamp of when the update is pushed to the repository, rather than using the submission date. I don't think that field is meant to be modified and I suppose it can lead yum/dnf to screw up. Is there any expert that can point me in the right direction here?The closest thing to a guide is this schema documentation file I found long ago from python-Updateinfo: https://pagure.io/python-Updateinfo/blob/master/f/docs/updateinfo.xsd In terms of a human expert, Pat Riehecky from CentOS is your best bet since he analyzed the format and built python-Updateinfo for Scientific Linux. I think you're right about issued and modified dates, though. That said, the issued date is normally supposed to be when it's released to the repository, I believe. But if we have both issued and modified, then issued should be when it's *first* published (first time it goes out of pending).
Well, if issued date is meant to be the date when the update is pushed to a repo, it will be changed from when the update is pushed to testing repo or to stable repo. Is that the intended behavior?
Nevertheless, I think Bodhi is currently producing faulty metadata, because the updateinfo file is made before recording changes to the updates. So:
- at the first compose when an update is pushed from pending to testing, the metadata reports `status="pending"` and both issued date and updated date are set to `date_submitted`
- in a later compose, metadata is changed to `status="testing"` and issued date is set to `date_pushed` (which is more recent than updated date)
- at the first compose that marks the update push to stable, the status remains `status="testing"` and issued date is reverted back to `date_submitted` (because for some reason Bodhi set `date_pushed` to None)
- finally, later composes we have the correct `status="stable"`, but with a issued date set to `date_pushed` (of the previous compose) and a modified date which is usually the original `date_submitted`
I think all of those date changes are the cause of the original issue reported for EPEL7, where yum screws up about metadata reporting bad updates. I suppose dnf just ignores those kind of errors, but the underling problem is still there.
I am quite worried about touching such critical code in Bodhi composer before someone else confirms my thought...
Mattia
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
