If you find it hard to reach him, you can also check some of the code in jbosstools-base, specifically in 'runtimes' folder. We have some code there that checks whether we have permissions for a given file, which basically means is the t&c accepted.
Check in DownloadManagerWorkflowUtility for some parts. getWorkflowStatus is one method that may provide code for you to copy. But there may be newer or cleaner code from David Hladky... - Rob Stryker On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Pete Muir <[email protected]> wrote: > David H and mark N are the right people. > On 12 Jul 2016 7:31 a.m., "Denis Golovin" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Pete, >> >> it seems T&C's workflow is really simple now, T&C's just signed >> when registrations is done. It seems that this request could be >> just https://developers.redhat.com/download-manager/rest/tc-accepted >> without any additional parameters. >> >> Who should I discuss it with? Is David Hladky right person? >> >> Thanks, >> Denis >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Pete Muir" <[email protected]> >> > To: "Denis Golovin" <[email protected]> >> > Cc: "Pavol Pitonak" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Rick >> Wagner" <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:32:56 AM >> > Subject: Re: [Devtools] Fix an installer problem with a server-side >> change? >> > >> > Exactly - I'm worried that in a couple of years time, someone will >> > delete that download, or upgrade the REST interface, not realising >> > that the installer is (ab)using it for something else... >> > >> > On 9 July 2016 at 08:43, Denis Golovin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
