Prevent reposync tracebacks on packages with empty release

[vzhestkov]

What does this PR change?

In case if repo contains the package with empty release specified in the header it could lead to the traceback while running spacewalk-repo-sync for such repo.

The only example found was microsoft-identity-diagnostics-1.0.0-.x86_64.rpm in https://packages.microsoft.com/rhel/8/prod/ but it was fixed after.

GUI diff

No difference.

Documentation

• No documentation needed: only internal and user invisible changes

Test coverage

• No tests: no tests for the modified packages and the fix is for very specific corner case.

Links

Fixes https://github.com/SUSE/spacewalk/issues/22135

Changelogs

Make sure the changelogs entries you are adding are compliant with https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#changelogs and https://github.com/uyuni-project/uyuni/wiki/Contributing#uyuni-projectuyuni-repository

If you don't need a changelog check, please mark this checkbox:

• No changelog needed

If you uncheck the checkbox after the PR is created, you will need to re-run changelog_test (see below)

Re-run a test

If you need to re-run a test, please mark the related checkbox, it will be unchecked automatically once it has re-run:

• Re-run test "changelog_test"
• Re-run test "backend_unittests_pgsql"
• Re-run test "java_pgsql_tests"
• Re-run test "schema_migration_test_pgsql"
• Re-run test "susemanager_unittests"
• Re-run test "javascript_lint"
• Re-run test "spacecmd_unittests"

[agraul]

Can these packages be installed? If not, it does not make sense to mirror them.

In general I wonder if skipping these packages (and logging that they are skipped because the release is unset) is a better approach. Are packages with an empty release tag valid?

[agraul]

BTW, this was also reported in #7356

[vzhestkov]

The fix was made exactly because of microsoft-identity-diagnostics also reported #7356 as @agraul mentioned. Yes, the package can be installed, but I didn't find the notes if this strictly violates any rules, but from my point of view the package should be treated as invalid in such case. And as I know the package was fixed already and not present in the repo anymore.

[agraul]

The fix was made exactly because of microsoft-identity-diagnostics also reported #7356 as @agraul mentioned. Yes, the package can be installed, but I didn't find the notes if this strictly violates any rules, but from my point of view the package should be treated as invalid in such case. And as I know the package was fixed already and not present in the repo anymore.

I have the same feeling, all packaging guides I have found say that a release is required - but I don't know if it's strictly required. I'd prefer not to have this "we set the release if unset" hack if we can avoid it.

[m-czernek]

ping @vzhestkov - just an FYI, I am closing this PR in favor of #7820