Kickstart_rhsm missing on some Foreman installs

Problem:

I’m exploring redhat_register vs kickstart_rhsm and I’ve got multiple test Foreman/Katello and Satellite servers - for some reason the kickstart_rhsm template is missing on the latest one I built that was a “clean” Satellite 6.12/Foreman 3.3. I have 2 other Satellite 6.12/Foreman 3.3 servers that were upgraded from Satellite 6.11/Foreman 3.1 that DO have the template. When I compare the /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/satellite-answers.yaml they are essentially identical outside of hostnames.

I also have a Foreman/Katello 3.5.3 (not Satellite) server that DOES have the kickstart_rhsm template. This server was upgraded from Foreman 3.1->3.3->3.5 - so I’m wondering if maybe this template was included in 3.1, but then pulled in 3.3?

Expected outcome:

I expected a clean install of Foreman 3.3 / Satellite 6.12 would have the same templates as my upgraded 3.1->3.3 test systems.

Foreman and Proxy versions:

See above.

Other relevant data:

The context of this exploration is related to trying to update my production system and get everything current. I was planning to switch my registration method to use kickstart_rhsm before upgrading to Satellite 6.13/Foreman 3.5 → 6.14/3.7 → 6.15/3.9 (which is the version I understand katello-ca-consumer may be going away?)

tl;dr - I want to know where this template comes from (and why it may be missing on my clean install) so I can plan on it being there (or NOT) through my upgrades.

Well… I still can’t explain why I have some Satellite 6.12 (Foreman 3.3 equivalent) servers with that template, but I did a bunch of clean installs of various Foreman versions to see when that template “appeared” and it’s on a clean install of 3.4, but not 3.3.

It also occurred to me that I could look at the tags in github for the template:

So I guess I mostly answered my own question.

Ok - so I finally dug down deep enough to confirm my hunch.

This template was added, removed, then re-added… (but I think only in the “Satellite” downstream releases). Here’s the relevant pkg versions that are the oddballs and the versions before/after:

foreman-3.1.1.23-2.el8sat.src.rpm - kickstart_rhsm.erb not yet added
foreman-3.1.1.25-1.el8sat.src.rpm - contains kickstart_rhsm.erb
foreman-3.1.1.26-1.el8sat.src.rpm - contains kickstart_rhsm.erb
foreman-3.1.1.27-1.el8sat.src.rpm - contains kickstart_rhsm.erb
foreman-3.3.0.17-1.el8sat.src.rpm - kickstart_rhsm.erb MISSING
(multiple versions of 3.3.0.x between 17-23 here)
foreman-3.3.0.23-1.el8sat.src.rpm - kickstart_rhsm.erb MISSING
foreman-3.5.1.14-1.el8sat.src.rpm - contains kickstart_rhsm.erb AGAIN!

In all versions listed above, the md5sum for the file is af0b031a7fdff8ffa26b601746522e10 - so the version in both the later Foreman 3.1 versions and the early 3.5 versions were the same version - but are just missing entirely from the Foreman 3.2 versions… I also did a clean install of Foreman 3.4 and confirmed the template shows in that (non-Satellite/ “pure Foreman”) version.

I now don’t think this was in the publicly available “Foreman” releases of 3.1 through 3.3 (showing up in 3.4), and only the SRPMS/RPMS of the Satellite releases…but it sure took a bit of digging through SRPMS to prove my hunch.

So I’m not insane! This explains why my “clean” installs of Satellite 6.12 (or “pure” Foreman 3.3) are missing the template that my “upgrades from 6.11 (3.1)->6.12 (3.3)” have the template. I have a hunch that a clean install of Foreman 3.1 upgraded to 3.2 then 3.3 would ALSO not have the template… but I’m choosing to not prove that.

Now I can finally sleep (and stop putting off my 6.13/3.5+ upgrades!)

This looks like a Satellite specific issue. Could you open a support case?

Hi ekohl - I agree with your assessment it’s only a Satellite (not upstream Foreman) issue. When I posted this initially I assumed the kickstart_rhsm template (as I understand it, the katello-consumer-ca replacement) would show up in the same versions of upstream foreman and downstream Satellite (I run both versions for test/learning purposes).

Thanks for the suggestion on opening a case. I had already contacted support last week, who responded this morning and was less than helpful - they only confirmed it’s in at least the current supported versions of 6.15+ (Foreman 3.9) - they’re not wrong per se, but it’s also not entirely correct as clearly shown in my last post.

Either way - I got to the bottom of it and I’m sorted - I posted the outcome for future web searchers to save them the confusion I went through. Thanks!