From ee276a09c0130918ba1a0e5a30780a865f0f2b00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Devan Goodwin <dgoodwin@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:05:47 -0400
Subject: Fix bad Consumer to Product mapping.

Should be ManyToMany, not OneToMany. Doh!
---
 .../org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/Consumer.java |  7 ++++---
 .../candlepin/model/test/ConsumerTest.java          | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

(limited to 'proxy')

diff --git a/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/Consumer.java b/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/Consumer.java
index 3e3cc66..ecc829e 100644
--- a/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/Consumer.java
+++ b/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/Consumer.java
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ import javax.persistence.GenerationType;
 import javax.persistence.Id;
 import javax.persistence.JoinColumn;
 import javax.persistence.JoinTable;
+import javax.persistence.ManyToMany;
 import javax.persistence.ManyToOne;
 import javax.persistence.OneToMany;
 import javax.persistence.OneToOne;
@@ -72,9 +73,9 @@ public class Consumer {
             inverseJoinColumns=@JoinColumn(name="CHILD_CONSUMER_ID"))
     private Set<Consumer> childConsumers;
 
-    // TODO: Are we sure we want to track this explicitly? Wouldn't we examine the 
-    // entitlements we're consuming and the products associated to them for this info?
-    @OneToMany
+    // Separate mapping because in theory, a consumer could be consuming products they're
+    // not entitled to.
+    @ManyToMany
     @JoinTable(name="cp_consumer_products",
             joinColumns=@JoinColumn(name="consumer_id"),
             inverseJoinColumns=@JoinColumn(name="product_id"))
diff --git a/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/test/ConsumerTest.java b/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/test/ConsumerTest.java
index 7fccd33..0ed5364 100644
--- a/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/test/ConsumerTest.java
+++ b/proxy/code/src/org/fedoraproject/candlepin/model/test/ConsumerTest.java
@@ -156,16 +156,14 @@ public class ConsumerTest extends DatabaseTestFixture {
     public void testConsumerHierarchy() {
         beginTransaction();
 
-        Consumer child1 = new Consumer("child1asd", owner, consumerType);
-        child1.setMetadataField("foo6", "bar");
-//        child1.addConsumedProduct(rhel);
+        Consumer child1 = new Consumer("child1", owner, consumerType);
+        child1.setMetadataField("foo", "bar");
         em.persist(child1);
         commitTransaction();
 
         beginTransaction();
         Consumer child2 = new Consumer("child2", owner, consumerType);
-        child2.setMetadataField("foo87", "bar");
-//        child2.addConsumedProduct(rhel);
+        child2.setMetadataField("foo", "bar");
         em.persist(child2);
         commitTransaction();
 
@@ -178,5 +176,18 @@ public class ConsumerTest extends DatabaseTestFixture {
         Consumer lookedUp = (Consumer)em.find(Consumer.class, consumer.getId());
         assertEquals(2, lookedUp.getChildConsumers().size());
     }
+    
+    // This this looks like a stupid test but this was actually failing at one point. :)
+    @Test
+    public void testMultipleConsumersSameConsumedProduct() {
+        beginTransaction();
+        
+        // Default consumer already consumes RHEL:
+        Consumer child1 = new Consumer("child1", owner, consumerType);
+        child1.setMetadataField("foo", "bar");
+        child1.addConsumedProduct(rhel);
+        em.persist(child1);
+        commitTransaction();
+    }
 
 }
-- 
cgit