There is no issue opened for this. Do you mean rest service should support requests to check T&C's using product-id instead of specific file. Something similar to https://developers.redhat.com/download-manager/rest/tc-accepted?productId=cdk
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Muir" <[email protected]> > To: "Denis Golovin" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Pavol Pitonak" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Rick Wagner" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 7:52:30 AM > Subject: Re: [Devtools] Fix an installer problem with a server-side change? > > Do we have an issue to replace this with a proper T&C check that > doesn't involve the name of a file that might get changed without > someone understanding the installer depends on it? > > On 8 July 2016 at 00:27, Denis Golovin <[email protected]> wrote: > > That is correct answer. This url is only to verify T&C's are signed. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Pavol Pitonak" <[email protected]> > >> To: "Pete Muir" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected], "Rick Wagner" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 4:50:19 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Devtools] Fix an installer problem with a server-side > >> change? > >> > >> It's not installing CDK 2.0.0-beta3 but the one specified in [1]. The > >> mentioned URL is only used for finding out whether the user provided > >> correct > >> username/password and whether he had agreed with T&C. > >> > >> [1] > >> https://github.com/redhat-developer-tooling/developer-platform-install/blob/master/requirements.json#L7 > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Pete Muir < [email protected] > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 6 July 2016 at 20:02, Rick Wagner < [email protected] > wrote: > >> > Hello DevTools, > >> > > >> > It seems we have a problem with the current version of the Development > >> > Suite > >> > installer. We have at least 2 new customer cases reporting inability to > >> > install due to the message dialogue "Terms and Conditions for the CDK > >> > have > >> > not been signed". > >> > > >> > This is concerning because we're also seeing similar activity on > >> > non-support > >> > channels. It's also worth noting that not every user that has a problem > >> > reports it-- some just give up and move on. There is enough volume here > >> > that we probably should treat this with some urgency. > >> > > >> > It seems likely the relevant code (thanks for highlighting this, Alexey) > >> > is > >> > below: > >> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > login() { > >> > this.authFailed = false; > >> > this.tandcNotSigned = false; > >> > > >> > let req = { > >> > method: 'GET', > >> > url: > >> > ' > >> > https://developers.redhat.com/download-manager/rest/tc-accepted?downloadURL=/file/cdk-2.0.0-beta3.zip > >> > ', > >> > <<<<<<<<<---- returns 'false' when not approved > >> > >> I noticed when reading this that this code appears to be downloading > >> CDK 2.0.0-beta3 which implies that either this is an old version of > >> the installer, or the installer is installing a very old CDK... > >> > >> > headers: { > >> > 'Authorization': 'Basic ' + this.base64.encode(this.username + ':' + > >> > this.password) > >> > } > >> > }; > >> > > >> > this.http(req) > >> > .then(this.handleHttpSuccess.bind(this)) > >> > .catch(this.handleHttpFailure.bind(this)); > >> > } > >> > > >> > --------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > So we have users getting denied use of our product. Do we require a > >> > rebuild > >> > immediately? Maybe. > >> > > >> > How about if we changed the rest service > >> > ( https://developers.redhat.com/download-manager/rest/tc-accepted ) so > >> > it > >> > includes a peak at an override database as well as whatever it's > >> > currently > >> > doing now? > >> > > >> > In that way, we could have the users pop over to a 'yes, I agree to the > >> > terms' page to insert an entry into the database. The rest service could > >> > use something like the provided username as a key to ensure a 'true' is > >> > returned. > >> > > >> > > >> > Or not. Is there a better way to fix this? > >> > > >> > Please consider, we need to fix this sooner rather than later.... > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Rick > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Devtools mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Devtools mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Devtools mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools > >> > _______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
