Update smart-proxy name configuration for development

[pondrejk]

Why are you introducing these changes? (Problem description, related links)

This change makes "internal" capsule naming consistent with downstream which in turn makes robottelo easier to use against dev environment

What are the changes introduced in this pull request?

• proxy name from hostname-dev to hostname

[ehelms]

This change makes "internal" capsule naming consistent with downstream which in turn makes robottelo easier to use against dev environment

You got me curious. How is this used inside robottelo? What tests / workflows?

[pondrejk]

You got me curious. How is this used inside robottelo? What tests / workflows?

I only started exploring this, but the idea is to use the setup fixtures from robottelo to create reproducers on devel setup that would be long/annoying to prepare by hand (things like external auth, living hosts registered through external capsules, provisioned hosts, things like that)

[ehelms]

I only started exploring this, but the idea is to use the setup fixtures from robottelo to create reproducers on devel setup that would be long/annoying to prepare by hand (things like external auth, living hosts registered through external capsules, provisioned hosts, things like that)

Fair. I am curious then, how is the smart-proxy / foreman-proxy / capsule referenced inside robottelo? How is it being used in this fixture creation?

[pondrejk]

Fair. I am curious then, how is the smart-proxy / foreman-proxy / capsule referenced inside robottelo? How is it being used in this fixture creation?

https://github.com/SatelliteQE/robottelo/blob/6f474e655f5648feaf3a7c8b2befa8c49b6e9c8d/pytest_fixtures/component/smartproxy.py#L7
Basically the expectation is for default proxy to be the same hostname as Satellite, current workaround for me is to add -dev at line 10

[ehelms]

I think this identifies that, just as we are breaking our assumptions in our deployment, that the testing needs to make less assumptions and lean into the features. In this case, instead of assuming a default proxy and that it will have certain capabilities, we should be leaning into finding a proxy with the features that is needed for the test. We might can get away with ensuring the url has the same hostname to find the "local" foreman-proxy. Relying on the name however, just won't cut it anymore.