Bug 1220563

No movement since the ticket was opened.

Adding Lubos Kocman to CC.

I think it is caused by having beta license which is identical for SLES and SLED extension ( it differs later for final license ). To confirm it I will need yast logs which I do not see attached to that openqa tests.

Any update here? What is the ETA for this?

Created attachment 873778 [details]
YaST2 logs for build 2.257

Hello, I've tried to re-run the test in a failing build (2.257) and suddenly the license screen for SLEWE is appearing:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13858154#step/firstrun/21

Also in latest build (2.290) is showing up too:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13858155#step/firstrun/21

Not sure what has changed, as the screen wasn't present in previous 2.257 builds:
https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13742363#step/firstrun/21

Attached you will find the `save_y2logs` for both runs, although I'm affraid I cannot get the failed ones for being an old run.

Created attachment 873779 [details]
YaST2 logs for build 2.290

Please indicate the current expectation for fixing the bug using the Target Milestone field. What do we believe is possible? 

In the cases where we do not plan to deliver or cannot guess (!?) please do not enter anything, but you can comment if you wish to provide more details.

Lubos can you give any ETA here?

I suppose this is a forgotten step in the https://jira.suse.com/browse/PED-1380

The tool is implemented by YaST so moving to YaST team. 

We only *really* need this with GM though. We don't publish earlier images.

The policy for those license has always been to show them only once if they are word-by-word identical. Has this now changed?

If not, did anybody check if the allegedly missing license is indeed different from a previous one that the user already confirmed?

In the failed case, I see a Beta license here (in the firstboot workflow, as expected):

https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13626581#step/firstrun/9

We can clearly see that this is a Beta license. As Josef wrote in comment #2, the other license that is reported as missing here, is almost certainly also a Beta license, word by word identical to this one. In that case, the user won't be prompted for it a second time. This is actually a feature.

How about the latest test? Was that also a Beta license? Since the product is not released yet, very likely yes.

Please check in the installed product at

  /usr/share/licenses/product

I have one subdirectory base/ there. If there are multiple products installed, there might be multiple subdirectories for each one.

From the last y2logs:

10:05:04 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb
  (block in AllLicensesAccepted):1657 
  License eula_/usr/share/licenses/product/base/
  accepted: true

> 10:05:00 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(DisplayLicenseDialogWithTitle):687 Displayable languages: ["", "cs", "de", "es", "fr", "it", "pt_BR", "ru"], wanted: 
> 10:05:00 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(WhichLicenceFile):948 Using license file: /usr/share/licenses/product/base//license.txt
> 10:05:01 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: next
> 10:05:01 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in AllLicensesAccepted):1657 License eula_/usr/share/licenses/product/base/ accepted: false
> 10:05:01 <1> [ui] YPushButton.cc(setFunctionKey):202 Guessing button role YOKButton for YPushButton "OK" at 0x7f0af00b2860 from function key F10
> 10:05:03 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: eula_/usr/share/licenses/product/base/
> 10:05:04 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: next
> 10:05:04 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in AllLicensesAccepted):1657 License eula_/usr/share/licenses/product/base/ accepted: true
> 10:05:04 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):603 All licenses have been accepted.

45 seconds later:

> 10:05:51 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(WhichLicenceFile):948 Using license file: /tmp/extension-eula-20240325-707-19xyasa/license.txt
> 10:05:51 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(WhichLicenceFile):948 Using license file: /tmp/extension-eula-20240325-707-19xyasa/license.txt
> 10:05:51 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(update_license_location):780 Updating license URL: http://openqa.suse.de/assets/repo/SLE-15-SP6-Product-WE-POOL-x86_64-Build67.1-Media1.license/license.txt
> 10:05:53 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: next
> 10:05:53 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in AllLicensesAccepted):1657 License eula_SUSE Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP6 x86_64 (BETA) extension EULA accepted: false
> 10:05:53 <1> [ui] YPushButton.cc(setFunctionKey):202 Guessing button role YOKButton for YPushButton "Yes" at 0x7f0af00b4080 from function key F10
> 10:05:53 <1> [ui] YPushButton.cc(setFunctionKey):202 Guessing button role YCancelButton for YPushButton "No" at 0x7f0af00b7c50 from function key F9
> 10:05:55 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: eula_SUSE Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP6 x86_64 (BETA) extension EULA
> 10:05:55 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):578 User ret: next
> 10:05:55 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in AllLicensesAccepted):1657 License eula_SUSE Linux Enterprise Workstation Extension 15 SP6 x86_64 (BETA) extension EULA accepted: true
> 10:05:55 <1> [Ruby] modules/ProductLicense.rb(block in HandleLicenseDialogRet):603 All licenses have been accepted.

And that license here that was used by that extension was this one (as shown in the URL from the third line of the y2log snippet in comment #15):

https://openqa.suse.de/assets/repo/SLE-15-SP6-Product-WE-POOL-x86_64-Build67.1-Media1.license/license.txt

>. SUSE(R) End User License Agreement for Beta Software
>. 
>. PLEASE READ THIS BETA AGREEMENT CAREFULLY.  BY INSTALLING, 
>. DOWNLOADING OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS 
>. OF THIS BETA AGREEMENT AND ANY SUPPLEMENTAL SUSE LICENSE AGREEMENT 
>. INCLUDED WITH THE SOFTWARE.  IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS, 
>. DO NOT DOWNLOAD, INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE.  THE SOFTWARE MAY NOT 
>. BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR FURTHER DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN 
>. AUTHORIZATION FROM SUSE.
>. 
>. This SUSE End User License Agreement for Beta Software ("Beta 
>. Agreement") together with any Supplemental SUSE License Agreement 
>. included with the Software constitutes a legal agreement between You 
>. (an entity or a person) and SUSE LLC ("SUSE").
>. ...
>. ...


...which is the exact same as our usual Beta license; which the user already confirmed.

Maybe try modifying that text in your test setup at least a little bit for each different product; otherwise you'll raise a false alarm again and again.

See bug #305503 for details

From the QE point of view, we will need some clarification on WHEN to expect the SLEWE license or not. We do not demand to add it, remove it or change it, just to know the conditions under which it will appear to be prepared for it.

The test is automated and the screen was not showing here, which caused the test to fail:
Build 2.257 --> https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13742364

But it started to show up from this build and on:
Build 2.289 --> https://openqa.suse.de/tests/13839329

Well, that *is* clarified, as I explained above: Licenses are displayed unless the user already confirmed that exact same (word-by-word) license before.

Since you have your own specific test setup, you could simply add one line with the exact product name to each of the licenses; then they would be different, which would make sure that they are not suppressed as "user confirmed it before".