AlmaLinux 9 OVAL document has references to el8 packages

[javihernandez]

Original report: https://forums.almalinux.org/t/oval-package-appears-to-be-for-el8/4692

I checked some dnf updateinfo data and don't seem to be affected, same for the ALBS errata feed or the errata website.

In order to fix them, we need to:

• Identify those that have wrong references
• Check that records in ALBS have all required data. If so, regenerate OVAL for those that have mapping packages
• In case that ALBS is missing package mapping in some erratas, we'll need to carefully re-process the errata in ALBS using the public-errata-parser

AC: There are no references to el8 packages in AlmaLinux 9 OVAL document (and viceversa)

[javihernandez]

Affected records in:

• AlmaLinux 8
• AlmaLinux 9

I've observed that the wrong packages are indeed linked in db as errata_to_albs_packages. I've tried to spot where this mapping could go wrong but I can't really tell this problem can be reproduced again. The code involved has been updated since then and recent erratas don't present this problem. I might be wrong, but I'd say that nowadays, this should not happen again. In any case, we'll keep an eye on it.
As of the updateinfo data, I've double checked everything and as far as I can tell, they aren't affected by this problem.

[javihernandez]

After further analysis, I found out that these wrong packages also affect other erratas, as they are reusing some of these wrong package references for oval tests. As an example:

    "ALSA-2023:7205": [
        {
            "name": "nodejs-packaging",
            "evr": "0:2021.06-4.module_el9.3.0+88+29afeaa2"
        },
        {
            "name": "nodejs-packaging-bundler",
            "evr": "0:2021.06-4.module_el9.3.0+88+29afeaa2"
        },
    ]

As a consequence of processing these, we end up with the following test in criteria:

<criterion test_ref="oval:org.almalinux.alsa:tst:20237205011" comment="nodejs-packaging is earlier than 0:2021.06-4.module_el9.3.0+88+29afeaa2"/>

And the tests for these wrong packages are reused in ALSA-2024:1687 and ALSA-2024:2778.

I've carefully compiled a list with affected advisories and the right packages that must be used instead here.