Fix conflicting "name" for SLES15 and SLES15 for SAP uyuni client tools spacewalk-common-channel.

[majchroo]

What does this PR change?

Change NAME of multiple SLES15 for SAP channels to include "SAP" at the end.

This PR resolves a conflict caused by duplicated names for SLES15 and SLES15 for SAP.

This logic was applied based on current SLES12 and SLES12 for SAP.

Steps to reproduce the conflict:

1. Activate uyuni-client tools for SLES

spacewalk-common-channels sles15-sp5-uyuni-client

2. Activate uyuni-client tools for SLES4SAP

spacewalk-common-channels sles15-sap-sp5-uyuni-client

Expected result:

Both channels are active.

Actual result:

Error activating "second" channel

localhost:~ # spacewalk-common-channels sles15-sap-sp5-uyuni-client
INFO: sle-product-sles_sap15-sp5-pool-x86_64 exists
WARNING: sles15-sap-sp5-uyuni-client-x86_64: redstone.xmlrpc.XmlRpcFault: The channel name 'Uyuni Client Tools for SLES15 SP5 x86_64' is already in use, please enter a different name

Uyuni version

Uyuni release [2023.04]

GUI diff

No difference.

• DONE

Documentation

• No documentation needed: We don't document all channels at spacewalk-common-channels.

• DONE

Test coverage

• No tests: Manually tested

• DONE

Links

Tracks # Added SLES12 SP5 and SLES4SAP

• DONE

Changelogs

- Fix conflicting NAME for SLES and SLES4SAP channels of uyuni tools in spacewalk-common-channels`

https://github.com/majchroo/uyuni/blob/master/utils/spacewalk-utils.changes.majchroo.fix-conflicting-uyuni-tools

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"

[github-actions]

This PR is stale because it has been open 60 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[juliogonzalez]

@mcalmer change looks OK, I guess that since the conflict prevents adding the client tools, there's no need for a sQL migration, right?

[mcalmer]

Yes, I think we do not need a schema migration

[raulillo82]

LGTM